SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
| Case Title: | Stott v The Queen | ||||||||||
| Citation: | [2021] ACTCA 18 | ||||||||||
| Hearing Date: | 21 May 2021 | ||||||||||
| Decision Date: | 5 July 2021 | ||||||||||
| Before: | Murrell CJ, Mossop and Loukas-Karlsson JJ | ||||||||||
| Decision: | See [81] | ||||||||||
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Manifest excess – Whether sentencing judge erred in finding that offence was pre-meditated – Whether strict bail conditions “quasi- custody” – [Redacted] – Resentence | ||||||||||
| Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 32, 34 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 45A Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37N | ||||||||||
| Cases Cited: | [Redacted] AB v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 339 Aoun v R [2011] NSWCCA 284 Banat v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 321 Bentley v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 18 Clarke v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 232; 254 A Crim R 150 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v JG [2010] NSWCCA 222; 220 A Crim R 19 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Hordern v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 138; 278 A Crim R 353 Hoskins v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 157 Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601 [Redacted] Ngata v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 18 [Redacted] R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Delaney [2003] NSWCCA 342; 59 NSWLR 1 R v Evans; R v Stott [2020] ACTSC 220 [Redacted] [Redacted] R v Kyriakou (1987) 29 A Crim R 50 R v O'Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397 R v Stott [2020] ACTSC 5 R v Stott [2020] ACTSC 284 R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330; 149 A Crim R 167 [Redacted] Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 | ||||||||||
| [Redacted] | |||||||||||
| Turnbull v Chief Executive of the Office of the Environment and | |||||||||||
| Heritage [2015] NSWCCA 278; 213 LGERA 220 Urlich v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 30; 14 ACTLR 267 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 [Redacted] [Redacted] | |||||||||||
| Parties: | Sharon Stott (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) | ||||||||||
| Representation: | Counsel | ||||||||||
| M Jones (Appellant) | |||||||||||
| R Christensen (Respondent) | |||||||||||
| Solicitors | |||||||||||
| Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Appellant) | |||||||||||
| ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |||||||||||
| File Number: | AC 35 of 2020 | ||||||||||
| Decision under appeal: |
| ||||||||||
| THE COURT: | |||||||||||
| The appeal | |||||||||||
| The appellant and the co-offender (Mr Evans) were charged with offences relating to a joint criminal enterprise whereby, on 18 January 2019, they unlawfully confined the complainant. They were tried before Burns J (the sentencing judge). | |||||||||||
| The appellant was convicted of the offences of unlawful confinement (contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code)) and making a demand accompanied by a threat (contrary to s 32(2) of the Crimes Act by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code) (Counts 1 and 3… |
Continue reading Stott v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stott v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 18
- Case
- [2021] ACTCA 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, Stott, by a sentencing judge in the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on whether the sentencing judge had erred in finding that the offence was pre-meditated and whether strict bail conditions could be considered "quasi-custody" for the purposes of sentencing.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales were whether the sentencing judge had made an error in finding that the offence was pre-meditated, thereby influencing the severity of the sentence, and whether the appellant's period on strict bail conditions should be treated as equivalent to time spent in custody. The court was asked to consider these points in determining if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The court analysed the evidence presented at trial to assess the pre-meditation element. It considered the appellant's actions and intentions leading up to the commission of the offence. Regarding the bail conditions, the court examined the nature and restrictiveness of those conditions to determine if they amounted to a form of confinement that warranted consideration as time in custody for sentencing purposes. The court applied principles of sentencing law, including the concept of manifest excess and the proper characterisation of pre-meditation and the impact of bail conditions on sentence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had erred in their assessment of pre-meditation and in their approach to the bail conditions. The court resentenced the appellant, reducing the overall term of imprisonment.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales were whether the sentencing judge had made an error in finding that the offence was pre-meditated, thereby influencing the severity of the sentence, and whether the appellant's period on strict bail conditions should be treated as equivalent to time spent in custody. The court was asked to consider these points in determining if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The court analysed the evidence presented at trial to assess the pre-meditation element. It considered the appellant's actions and intentions leading up to the commission of the offence. Regarding the bail conditions, the court examined the nature and restrictiveness of those conditions to determine if they amounted to a form of confinement that warranted consideration as time in custody for sentencing purposes. The court applied principles of sentencing law, including the concept of manifest excess and the proper characterisation of pre-meditation and the impact of bail conditions on sentence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had erred in their assessment of pre-meditation and in their approach to the bail conditions. The court resentenced the appellant, reducing the overall term of imprisonment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [81]
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.