[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List]

Richardson v Moore [2005] NTSC 45

PARTIES: RICHARDSON, Jeffrey James

MOORE, David Steven

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: JA 94 of 2004 (20408650)

DELIVERED: 18 August 2005

HEARING DATE: 12 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

Appellant pleaded guilty to stealing a cheque and its proceeds, the property of his employer contrary to s 210 Criminal Code (NT) – whether conviction should be recorded – Sentencing Act (NT) – breach of trust a significant matter – sentencing discretion properly exercised.

Impact of delay on sentence – no explanation of the delay – no impact of delay on appellant – sentencing magistrate did not need to take delay into account.

Criminal Code (NT), s 210

Sentencing Act (NT), s 6, s 8

R v Bird (1998) 56 NTR 17 at 33, applied

Toohey v Peach (2004) 143 NTR 1 at 4, considered

Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 275, considered

Hesseen v Burgoyne [2003] NTSC 47 at par [20], considered

The Queen v Raggett, Douglas and Miller (1990) 50 A Crim R 41, applied

R v Miceli [1998] 4 VR 588 at 591, considered

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 at 64, considered

Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517, considered

Crawley v R (1981) 36 ALR 241, considered

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: P. Elliott

Respondent: J.W. Adams

Solicitors:

Appellant: P. Elliott

Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification: B

Judgment ID Number: ril0520

Number of pages: 13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

AT DARWIN

Richardson v Moore [2005] NTSC 45

No JA 94 of 2004 (20408650)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin

BETWEEN:

RICHARDSON, Jeffrey James

Appellant

AND:

MOORE, David Steven

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 18 August 2005)

1. On 7 December 2004 the appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of having stolen a cheque and its proceeds valued at $2972.90, the property of Tourism Holdings Pty Ltd, contrary to s 210 of the Criminal Code. On that day he was convicted but discharged without penalty. A victim’s levy of $40 was imposed. The appellant now appeals against the sentence on the following grounds:

“1. The magistrate erred in recording a conviction.

2. The magistrate erred in placing too much weight on the fact the offence was committed by an employee.

3. The magistrate placed insufficient weight on the particular circumstances of this offence.”

2. In addition, at the hearing the appellant sought to add a ground of appeal being that “the learned magistrate either failed to give sufficient weight to the delay between the time of offending and the matter coming to court or, alternatively, misdirected himself…

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 Richardson v Moore

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Moore [2005] NTSC 045
Case: [2005] NTSC 45
Decision Date: 18 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Richardson v Moore [2005] NTSC 45 concerns the sentencing of Jeffrey James Richardson who pleaded guilty to stealing a cheque and its proceeds, the property of his employer, contrary to s 210 of the Criminal Code (NT). Richardson appeals against the decision of the sentencing magistrate, David Steven Moore, who convicted him but discharged him without penalty, imposing a victim’s levy of $40. The appeal focuses on the magistrate's decision to record a conviction, the weight given to the breach of trust, and the impact of the delay between the offence and the sentencing hearing.

The central legal issues are whether the magistrate erred in recording a conviction, overemphasised the breach of trust, and failed to consider the impact of the delay between the offence and the sentencing. Richardson argued that the magistrate's discretion was improperly exercised as there were mitigating factors such as his commendable background and community service, and the delay should have resulted in a lesser sentence.

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, in dismissing the appeal, found that the magistrate had properly exercised his discretion. The court noted that the breach of trust was a significant factor and the magistrate correctly considered this in sentencing. Regarding the delay, the court held that since the delay had no impact on Richardson, there was no need for the magistrate to consider it in determining the sentence. The court also found that the magistrate had considered all relevant factors, including Richardson's background and community service, in deciding not to impose a penalty.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, affirming the sentencing decision of the magistrate.

Orders