KONI MARGARET SCRIVENER v ELIOTT PAPANTANIOU, LEIGH ANTHONY HEAZLEWOOD and CATHERINE ELIZABETH CORVISY [2009]
ACTSC 41 (15 April 2009)
APPEAL – appeal from decision of the Magistrates Court of the ACT – principles for determining sentencing appeals – Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – refusal of sentencing Magistrate to grant adjournment for preparation of CADAS report – appellant’s history of drug abuse canvassed in pre-sentence report – failure of appellant to provide evidence of rehabilitation intentions – no error by Magistrate.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – Magistrate’s consideration of alternatives to full-time imprisonment – no obligation to make a deferred sentence order – appellant’s unsuitability for community service work or periodic detention does not entitle her to a more lenient sentence – no error by Magistrate – Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 10.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing principles – whether sentences manifestly excessive – offences at lower end of spectrum – inadequacy of information about quantity of heroin – Magistrate’s approach to time in custody – relevance of appellant’s mental or emotional state to theft offence – significance of no time in custody before offence committed – sentencing for Centrelink fraud – term of imprisonment is starting point but not inevitable outcome – sentences on ACT offences manifestly excessive.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing principles – pleas of guilty – no requirement to give discount or explain why no discount given – Magistrate erred by failing to consider pleas of guilty – Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 35, 37.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – totality – no evidence Magistrate failed to apply totality principle properly.
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 10, 35, 37, 117
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 321
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 135.2, 137.1
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 171
Bates v Wheatley [2000] WASCA 38 (18 January 2000)
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
DPP (Vic) v Raddino (2002) 128 A Crim R 437
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Markarian v The Queen (2006) 228 CLR 357
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
Taylor v Bowden [2009] ACTSC 13 (2 March 2009)
R v Purdon (unreported, NSWCCA, Hunt, McInerney and Donovan JJ, 27 March 1997)
R v Seckold [2005] ACTSC 34 (18, 22 February 2005)
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 (17 August 2000)
R v Tsokos [1995] NSWCA 388 (19 June 1995)
Ring v Beath [2009] ACTSC 19 (16 March 2009)
The Queen v Brewer [2004] ACTCA 10 (1 June 2004)
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. SCA 29 of 2008
Judge: Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 15 April 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCA 29 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: KONI MARGARET SCRIVENER
Appellant
Continue reading Scrivener v Papantaniou
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Scrivener v Papantaniou [2009] ACTSC 41
- Case
- [2009] ACTSC 41
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved whether the Magistrate erred in refusing to grant an adjournment for the preparation of a CADAS report, the consideration of sentencing alternatives, and the application of sentencing principles. The court examined whether the Magistrate's refusal to grant an adjournment for the preparation of a CADAS report constituted an error, whether the Magistrate adequately considered alternatives to full-time imprisonment, and whether the Magistrate properly applied sentencing principles. Additionally, the court assessed whether the Magistrate's failure to consider the appellant's pleas of guilty constituted an error and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.
The court found that the Magistrate did not err in refusing to grant an adjournment for the preparation of a CADAS report, as the appellant had not provided evidence of rehabilitation intentions. The court also determined that there was no obligation for the Magistrate to make a deferred sentence order, as the appellant was unsuitable for community service work or periodic detention. However, the court held that the Magistrate erred in failing to consider the appellant's pleas of guilty, which should have resulted in a discount to the sentence. Furthermore, the court concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive, despite some concerns about the inadequacy of information regarding the quantity of heroin and the relevance of the appellant's mental or emotional state to the theft offence.
The appeal was upheld, and the court issued an order that the appeal is upheld. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering pleas of guilty in sentencing, the adequacy of information provided to the court, and the proper application of sentencing principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal is upheld.
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.