Snaidero v Crampton

In Snaidero v Crampton, the appellant appealed against the sentence handed down by the Magistrates Court in relation to a previous appeal, Snaidero v O’Sullivan [2013] ACTSC 117. The appellant argued that the learned Magistrate had erred in sentencing by not taking into account a pre-sentence supervision report and that the Magistrate should have considered his medical condition in the sentencing. The appellant also sought to have the appeal struck out for want of prosecution, claiming that delays were not entirely his responsibility.

The court was required to determine whether the Magistrate had erred in sentencing by not considering the pre-sentence supervision report and the appellant's medical condition. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the appellant's responsibility for the delay in prosecuting the appeal was egregious enough to warrant striking out the appeal.

The court found that there was no error in the Magistrate not taking the pre-sentence supervision report into account as the medical condition was one that could be addressed by the Sentence Administration Board. Furthermore, the court held that the periodic detention already served should have been taken into account in re-sentencing the appellant. As for the application to strike out the appeal, the court dismissed the application as the delays were not solely caused by the appellant and his responsibility for the delay was not egregious.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of declaring that one period of periodic detention served by the appellant prior to the institution of the appeal in Snaidero v O’Sullivan [2013] ACTSC 117 be declared to have been taken as service of the order of the Magistrates Court on 29 August 2013. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.