ROBERT JILDO SAGA v JARROD REID AND TRISTAN ALLAN COLLETT [2010] ACTSC 59 (1 July 2010)
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court of the ACT – section 208(1)(e)(i) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) - Ground of appeal, sentences of imprisonment manifestly excessive.
APPEAL – Consideration of fresh evidence not before Sentencing Magistrate – Different circumstances of the offender at the time of sentencing and at the time of the appeal.
APPEAL – Sentencing principles – Offender sentenced to rising of the court – Order of sentences – Consideration of plea of guilty
APPEAL – Re sentencing – Deferred sentence order
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 321, 324(1) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT)), ss 171, 171(1), 171A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 10(2), 13(6), 17, 27, 37, 63, 65, Pt 3.2, 4.2
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. SCA 70 of 2009
Judge: Refshauge J Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 1 July 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE) ) No. SCA 70 of 2009 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:ROBERT JILDO SAGA
Appellant
AND:JARROD REID AND TRISTAN ALLAN COLLETT
Respondents
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J Date: 1 July 2010 Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal…
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 Saga v Reid
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Case
[2010] ACTSC 59
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Saga v Reid involved the appellant, Saga, challenging the sentencing decision of the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant was found guilty of an offence under section 208(1)(e)(i) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and sought to appeal on the basis that the sentencing magistrate did not have all the relevant information available at the time of the original sentencing.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and whether the introduction of fresh evidence at the appeal stage warranted a re-sentencing. The appeal hinged on the circumstances of the offender at the time of the original sentencing and at the time of the appeal. The court had to consider whether the appellant's circumstances had changed in a way that would justify a different sentence and whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of the new evidence.
The court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive, given the fresh evidence presented at the appeal. The court noted that the sentencing magistrate had not been aware of the full circumstances of the appellant at the time of the original sentencing. Furthermore, the court considered the order of sentences and the appellant's plea of guilty, which had not been taken into account at the original sentencing. The court concluded that the appellant's circumstances had changed significantly, warranting a re-sentencing. The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing.
The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court of the ACT for re-sentencing. The court ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced in light of the fresh evidence and the changed circumstances of the offender.