Legal Research
Cases
Raguz v Police

Raguz v Police

Case [2020] SASC 111 24 June 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
RAGUZ v POLICE
[2020] SASC 111
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Bleby
24 June 2020
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - OTHER MATTERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - PURPOSE OF SENTENCE - PROPORTIONALITY
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW - IN GENERAL - JUDGE MISTAKEN OR MISLED - PARTICULAR CASES
This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by a Magistrate.
On 29 January 2020, the appellant snatched a gold necklace and bracelet, which had a combined value of $10,198, from Angus & Coote Jewellers. The appellant then got into the passenger’s side of a blue Mitsubishi SUV driven by his co-accused and partner. The car was displaying South Australian registration plates, but a Victorian registration plate was visible from underneath. The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of theft contrary to s 134 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), which related to the jewellery and registration plates respectively.
The Magistrate sentenced the appellant to a starting point of two years’ imprisonment. Her Honour reduced that by 40 per cent for the appellant’s guilty plea, to a period of one year, two months and two weeks. A non-parole period was fixed at 10 months. The sentence was backdated to commence on 29 January 2020.
The co-offender was sentenced to a starting point of six months’ imprisonment, which was reduced to four months and one week on account of her guilty plea. This was further reduced to four months and one day to reflect the time she had already spent in custody. The Magistrate imposed a partially suspended sentence, which had the effect that at the rising of the court, the co-offender was able to be released from custody.
Held, allowing the appeal on Ground 7.1 insofar as it repeats Ground 5.2, and dismissing the appeal in respect of Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 5.3 and 6:
1. The head sentence imposed on the appellant by the Magistrate did not offend the principle of proportionality.
2. The head sentence did not offend the principle of parity.
3. The Magistrate did not fail to have regard to the purpose of rehabilitation of the appellant. The secondary sentencing purposes set out in s 4 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) are given content through various provisions of the Sentencing Act, including ss 10 and 11.
4. The head sentence was not manifestly excessive. The non-parole period imposed does not bear anything other than a proportionate relationship with the final head sentence after the discount for the guilty plea.
5. The Magistrate mistakenly attributed…

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 Raguz v Police

Details

AGLC: Raguz v Police [2020] SASC 111
Case: [2020] SASC 111
Decision Date: 24 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Raguz v Police involved the appellant, who was convicted of several criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of South Australia, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that there was a parity issue with co-offenders. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there was parity between the sentences of co-offenders. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was disproportionate or whether there was an error in the consideration of the appellant's circumstances or the principles of sentencing.

The Supreme Court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive. The court held that the Magistrate had not adequately considered the appellant's personal circumstances and had failed to apply the principles of sentencing appropriately. The court also found that there was a parity issue with co-offenders, as they had received lesser sentences for similar offences. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new sentencing hearing before a different Magistrate.

The Supreme Court did not interfere with the discretion of the Magistrates Court in general, but found that in this particular case, the Magistrate had been mistaken or misled. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for the court to consider the individual circumstances of the offender. The court also highlighted the need for parity between co-offenders to ensure that justice is served.

Orders