CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – sentence appeal – whether sentences imposed were manifestly excessive – common assault – property damage – fail to appear – resist arrest – fail to stop – drive unlicensed as a repeated offender – drive motor vehicle without consent – six offences committed while appellant was a young person – where appellant has mental health diagnoses – sentences not manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed
APPEAL – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where appellant sought to admit further evidence on appeal – whether admission of further evidence means that it is no longer necessary to establish an error prior to resentencing – operation of s 214 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) – error is necessary for an appeal even if further evidence is admitted – further evidence not admitted
[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 SBT v Wright
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
SBT v Wright [2021] ACTSC 322
Case
[2021] ACTSC 322
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant has appealed against sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court and Childrens Court on 12 August 2021. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The appellant sought that the sentences be set aside and that he be resentenced. The court considered whether it was necessary to establish an error prior to resentencing even if further evidence was admitted. The court concluded that it was still necessary to establish error in order for an appeal to succeed, even if further evidence was admitted. The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.