R v White [2006] NTSC 95

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

WHITE, MEREDITH

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: 20208995

DELIVERED: 12 December 2006

HEARING DATES: 12 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF: MILDREN J

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – suspended sentence subject to conditions made under Juvenile Justice Act – Act repealed and replaced with Youth Justice Act – breach of conditions – no relevant transitional provisions – whether breach can be dealt with under repealed Act – Interpretation Act s 12(c) - whether defendant subject to a “liability” – defendant re-sentenced under repealed Act

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – suspended sentence subject to conditions made under Juvenile Justice Act – Act repealed and replaced with Youth Justice Act – breach of conditions – no relevant transitional provisions – whether breach can be dealt with under repealed Act – Interpretation Act s 12(c) - whether defendant subject to a “liability” – defendant re-sentenced under repealed Act

Legislation:
Acts Interpretation Act (NSW)
Health Act 1875 (UK)
Interpretation Act, s 12, s 12(c)
Juvenile Justice Act, s 53(1)(g), s 53(3), s 53(4)
Youth Justice Act

Citations:
Followed:
Barnes v Eddleston (1876) 1 Ex.D. 102
Byrne v Garrison [1965] VR 523
Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas (1967) 116 CLR 537

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Dr N Rogers
Defendant: Ms Aicken

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant: Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service

Judgment category classification: B
Number of pages: 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

R v White [2006] NTSC 95
No. 20208995

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Plaintiff

AND:

MEREDITH WHITE
Defendant

CORAM: MILDREN J

REMARKS ON SENTENCING

(Delivered 12 December 2006)

[1] On the 24th of December 2002, Meredith White appeared before Bailey J in this Court in respect of two counts of aggravated robbery committed on 10 June 2002. The robberies were committed in company with one FE when both the offender and FE were 16 years of age. The first of the robberies occurred at a Mobil service station in Alice Springs. The first robbery involved the taking of an amount of $1,095 from the till and an assault on the console operator. The second robbery occurred a little later in the afternoon and involved the removal of $25 in cash from the console operator’s purse.

[2] The principal offender was FE. Meredith White’s role was to keep watch. Ms White was sentenced to detention for 12 months by Bailey J but the sentence was suspended with effect from the 24th of December 2002 on condition that she place herself under the supervision of a parole officer and obey the directions of that parole officer. Ms White served some 19 days in detention at the time the suspension took effect.

[3] Subsequently, Ms White failed to comply with any part of that order notwithstanding having been given ample opportunity to carry out her obligations. Those failures amounted to a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2006] NTSC 95
Case: [2006] NTSC 95
Decision Date: 12 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v White involved the defendant, Ms White, who was subject to a suspended sentence under the Juvenile Justice Act. Following a breach of the conditions of that sentence, the defendant was brought before the court to determine how the breach should be dealt with. The court had to decide whether the breach could be addressed under the repealed Juvenile Justice Act or if the Youth Justice Act, which replaced it, should be applied. Notably, there were no transitional provisions to assist in determining the appropriate Act to apply. The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act to determine whether Ms White was subject to a "liability" under the repealed Act.

The legal issues before the court revolved around statutory interpretation, particularly whether Ms White's breach of the suspended sentence conditions could be dealt with under the provisions of the repealed Juvenile Justice Act. The court needed to interpret section 12(c) of the Acts Interpretation Act to ascertain if Ms White was subject to a "liability" under the repealed Act. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of re-sentencing Ms White under the repealed Act, given the absence of transitional provisions.

In determining the appropriate Act to apply, the court referred to the principle established in Barnes v Eddleston and Byrne v Garrison, which held that a defendant is subject to a "liability" if they are subject to a punishment or penalty under a repealed statute. The court held that Ms White was indeed subject to a "liability" under the repealed Act, as she was facing punishment for breaching the conditions of her suspended sentence. Consequently, the court decided to re-sentence Ms White under the repealed Juvenile Justice Act.

Ms White was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine months. The sentence was backdated to the 22nd of October 2006 to account for periods of imprisonment and detention already served under the order of Riley J or while in detention pending the court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Ms White is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine months. That sentence is backdated to the 22nd of October 2006 to take into account periods of imprisonment and detention already served under the order of Riley J or whilst in detention pending disposition

before Bailey J.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.