Steep v Hall - [2024] ACTSC 320

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Steep v Hall

Citation:

[2024] ACTSC 320

Hearing Date:

15 October 2024

Decision Date:

21 October 2024

Before:

Baker J

Decision:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The sentences imposed by the Magistrate on 5 April 2024, including the commencement and expiry dates of those sentences, are confirmed.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – theft and minor theft offences – whether Magistrate erred in assessing objective seriousness of minor theft by reference to “monetary mid-point” – whether Magistrate erred in taking into account ‘normal’ ratio for non-parole periods when fixing the unsuspended portion of a suspended sentence – error established – appellant resentenced afresh – no lesser sentences than those imposed by the Magistrate are appropriate – appeal dismissed.

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 49(1)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 321, 754(1)

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), pt 3

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32(2)(a)

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 5C

Cases Cited:

Agarwal v Coutts (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 92

Bugmy v The Queen [1990] HCA 18 ; 169 CLR 525

House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499

Kristiansen v Yeats [2022] ACTSC 351

MT v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 26

Morrison v Maher [2021] ACTSC 312

New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr [2019] NSWCA 231; 100 NSWLR 578

Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWCA 198

Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9

Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584

Parties:

Mitchell Ryan Steep ( Appellant)

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented ( Appellant)

K McCann ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented ( Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)

File Number:

SCA 23 of 2024

Decision Under Appeal:

Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court

Before: Magistrate Temby

Date of Decision: 5 April 2024

Case Title: The Police v Mitchell Ryan Streep

Court File Numbers:

CAN6969 of 2023;

CAN5714 of 2023;

CAN6971 of 2023;

CAN7220 of 2023;

CAN8259 of 2023;

CAN8603 of 2023;

CAN9123 of 2023;

CAN9681 of 2023;

CAN10720 of 2023;

CAN134 of 2024;

CAN19 of 2024

BAKER J:

Outline

1․The appellant, Mitchell Steep, pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to six charges of minor theft, a charge of drive whilst licence suspended (repeat offender), a charge of failure to appear after entering a bail undertaking and a charge of enter motor vehicle without consent. He entered a plea of not guilty to a charge of failure to stop vehicle for police (repeat offender), however, he was found guilty of this offence at hearing. These offences placed the appellant in breach of four suspended terms of imprisonment imposed in respect of one offence of theft and three offences of minor theft.
2․On 5 April 2024, the Magistrate sentenced the appellant in relation to the above charges and breach offences for a total effective sentence of 11 months and 14 days, commencing on 11 December 2023…

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 Steep v Hall

Details

AGLC: Steep v Hall [2024] ACTSC 320
Case: [2024] ACTSC 320
Decision Date: 21 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of theft and minor theft. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that the Magistrate had erred in two respects: first, by assessing the objective seriousness of the minor theft offence by reference to the monetary mid-point; and second, by taking into account the 'normal' ratio for non-parole periods when determining the unsuspended portion of a suspended sentence. The Magistrate's decisions were challenged on the basis that they led to an overestimation of the appropriate penalty for the minor theft offence and an inappropriate calculation of the non-parole period for the suspended sentence.

The court considered whether the Magistrate's approach to assessing the seriousness of the minor theft offence was correct. The court found that the Magistrate had erred by using the monetary mid-point as the benchmark for assessing the objective seriousness of the offence, rather than considering the totality of the circumstances, including the value of the stolen property and the context of the offence. The court also examined whether the Magistrate had erred in calculating the unsuspended portion of the suspended sentence. It was found that the Magistrate had taken into account the 'normal' ratio for non-parole periods, which was not appropriate in this case. The court held that both errors were significant and led to an overestimation of the appropriate penalty.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were confirmed. The court held that no lesser sentences than those imposed by the Magistrate were appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of correctly assessing the objective seriousness of offences and calculating the appropriate penalty, including the unsuspended portion of a suspended sentence. The court's decision underscores the need for magistrates to carefully consider all relevant factors when determining sentences to ensure they are proportionate and just.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The sentences imposed by the Magistrate on 5 April 2024, including the commencement and expiry dates of those sentences, are confirmed.

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.