DEAN ANTHONY SIMONDS v THE QUEEN [2013] ACTCA 13 (15 March 2013)
APPEAL – appeal against sentence – offences of burglary, aggravated burglary, theft, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, intentional damage to property – range of appropriate sentences – sentencing within range – appeal dismissed
Fusimalohi v R [2012] ACTCA 49 Tate v R [2012] ACTCA 50 R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10 Love v R [2012] ACTCA 8 Richards v R [2012] ACTCA 10 EG v R [2012] ACTCA 17 Aldridge v R [2012] ACTCA 17 R v Hawkins (unreported, ACTSC, 5 October 2001, SCC 110 and 114 of 2001) R v Goward (unreported, ACTSC, 24 October 2011, SCC 380 of 2009) R v Valetich (unreported, ACTSC, 20 December 2011, SCC No 220 of 2011) Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. ACTCA 34 - 2012 No. SCC 71 of 2011
Judges: Higgins CJ, Burns and Dowsett JJ Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory Date: 15 March 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE) No. ACTCA 34 - 2012 ) No. SCC 71 of 2011 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY) )
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:DEAN ANTHONY SIMONDS
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
ORDER
Judges: Higgins CJ, Burns and Dowsett JJ Date: 15 March 2013 Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
the appeal be dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE) No. ACTCA 34 - 2012 ) No. SCC 71 of 2011 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY) )
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:DEAN ANTHONY SIMONDS
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
Judges: Higgins CJ, Burns and Dowsett JJ Date: 15 March 2013 Place: Canberra
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
The appellant appeals against sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him on 5 July 2012 and against associated orders.
THE SENTENCES
After a jury trial the appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and theft. The offences were committed on 23 September 2010 (the “September offences”). On 5 July 2012 the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and six months on the count of aggravated burglary, such sentence to date from 12 January 2011, reflecting time previously spent in custody. On the theft count he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months. The sentences were to be served concurrently.
On the same day, the appellant entered pleas of “guilty” to three charges arising out of events which occurred on 19 November 2010. Those offences were aggravated burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and intentional damage to property (the “November offences”). He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and four months, one year and eight months and six months respectively. Each sentence reflected a reduction of about 15 percent in recognition of the appellant’s “guilty” pleas. Those sentences…
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 Simonds v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13
Case
[2013] ACTCA 13
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Simonds, appealed against a sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria for offences including burglary, aggravated burglary, theft, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and intentional damage to property. The appeal concerned the appropriate range of sentences for these offences and whether the sentence imposed fell within that range.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing the particular sentence, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The Court was required to assess whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise outside the appropriate sentencing range.
The Court of Appeal considered the principles of sentencing, including the need to balance punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. It reviewed the facts of the offending, the appellant's criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. After careful consideration, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the County Court was within the appropriate range and was not demonstrably unjust or excessive.