SH v Masani - [2024] NTSC 19

CITATION:SH v Masani [2024] NTSC 19
PARTIES:SH

v
MASANI, Kolisi

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL from LOCAL COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:LCA 20 of 2023 (22315696)
DELIVERED:  25 March 2024
HEARING DATE:  25 March 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:C Leonard
Respondent:  P Williams
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Gra2404
Number of pages:   12

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
SH v Masani [2024] NTSC 19

LCA 20 of 2023 (22315696)

BETWEEN:

SH
Appellant

AND:

KOLISI MASANI
Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore on 25 March 2024)

This is an appeal against sentence imposed by the Youth Justice Court on 26 July 2023. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the offences of property damage, violent disorder, use of an offensive weapon, two counts of trespass and theft. The Youth Justice Court sentenced the appellant without conviction to an aggregate period of seven months’ detention which was suspended forthwith subject to conditions. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. At hearing, the appellant abandoned a second ground of appeal that the Youth Justice Court sentenced the appellant to an aggregate period of detention greater than the maximum available pursuant to s 125(2) of the Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT).
The objective circumstances of the offending
The objective circumstances of the offending may be summarised as follows. In the early hours of the morning of 20 May 2023, the appellant attended the Alice Springs Hospital in company with two co-offenders who were aged 23 and 17 respectively. They were accompanying an older woman who had suffered a head injury. The appellant and her co-offenders took the older woman into the Emergency Department, presumably for treatment. The appellant and her co-offenders then exited the Emergency Department, but not before one of those co-offenders had argued with security staff and became aggressive.
After standing outside the Emergency Department for a short period, the appellant slammed the automatic sliding doors together on three occasions. The appellant and her co-offenders then took turns slamming and kicking the sliding doors for several minutes. This damaged the doors to such a degree that they began to fall apart with the component parts falling to the ground. The appellant then picked up a metal pole which had broken away from the doorframe and used it to strike a pane of glass in the door. One of the appellant’s co-offenders then dislodged another pane of glass from the door and smashed it on the ground. The other co-offender then armed himself with a metal pole and threw it in a spear-like fashion through the waiting room of the Emergency Department. The first co-offender then picked up a different metal pole and threw it in a spear-like fashion causing it to strike a woman in the stomach.
The…

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 SH v Masani

Details

AGLC: SH v Masani [2024] NTSC 19
Case: [2024] NTSC 19
Decision Date: 25 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SH appeals against the sentence imposed by the Youth Justice Court on 26 July 2023. The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including property damage, violent disorder, use of an offensive weapon, and theft. The Youth Justice Court sentenced the appellant without conviction to an aggregate period of seven months’ detention, which was suspended forthwith subject to conditions. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the legal principles governing appeals on the ground of manifest excess, emphasizing that the exercise of sentencing discretion is not disturbed unless error is shown. The Youth Justice Court had ordered a pre-sentence report and considered various factors, including the appellant’s youth, early guilty plea, family network, and attempts to engage with education. The court balanced the seriousness of the offending with the need for rehabilitation, imposing a relatively short custodial term and suspending the sentence subject to conditions. The court held that the Youth Justice Court did not commit any error in its sentencing discretion, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court also addressed the second ground of appeal, concerning the maximum aggregate period available for sentencing. It considered the relevant statutory provisions and found that the sentence imposed was within the legal limits, consistent with the decision in Tomlins v The Queen [2013] NTCCA 18.

Orders