Stott v The Queen

Case [2012] ACTCA 33

SHARON ANN STOTT v THE QUEEN
[2012] ACTCA 33 (23 July 2012)

APPEAL – In general and right of appeal – Appeal from single Judge of the Supreme Court – Appeal against sentence – Appeal dismissed.

APPEAL – Sentence – Facts found by sentencing judge – Subjective circumstances – Objective seriousness of offence – Sentencing judge not in error.

APPEAL – Sentence – Parity – Relevant factors – Contribution to offence conduct – Age – Criminal antecedents – Comparison between ultimate, not ‘undiscounted’ sentences – Instinctive synthesis – Sentencing judge not in error.

APPEAL – Sentence – Manifest excess – Penalty not outside range.

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 35
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 34

GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Pavicevic v The Queen [2010] ACTCA 25
R v JW (2010) 77 NSWLR 7
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Williams [2007] VSC 131
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 48 of 2011
No. SCC 314A of 2009

Judges:        Refshauge and Lander JJ and Nield AJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           23 July 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 48 of 2011
  )          No. SCC 314A of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SHARON ANN STOTT

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Refshauge and Lander JJ and Nield AJ
Date:  23 July 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 48 of 2011
  )          No. SCC 314A of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SHARON ANN STOTT

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Refshauge and Lander JJ and Nield AJ
Date:  23 July 2012
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. Sharon Ann Stott, the appellant, pleaded guilty on 27 June 2011 to a count of unlawful confinement on an indictment dated 5 November 2009.

  1. That offence, contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), rendered her liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

  1. On 6 September 2011, Ms Stott was sentenced in the Supreme Court to imprisonment for three years and six months to commence on 31 May 2009, to be suspended on 30 September 2011 with a Good Behaviour Order for two years from the date of sentence.

THE FACTS

  1. The offence arose from events in which Ms Stott was involved with a number of other persons (the co-offenders) on 12 and 13 May 2009.

  1. It relevantly commenced with…

Continue reading Stott v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stott v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 33
Case
[2012] ACTCA 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Stott v The Queen* concerned a challenge to a sentence imposed by a single Judge of the Supreme Court. The appellant sought to appeal against the sentence handed down for an as yet unspecified offence.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in their assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the appellant. Further, the Court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was affected by a lack of parity with other offenders, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the principles of sentencing, including the need for an instinctive synthesis of all relevant factors. The Court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in their consideration of the objective seriousness of the offence or the subjective circumstances of the appellant. The Court also found no error in relation to parity, noting that comparisons should be made between ultimate sentences, not discounted ones, and that the sentencing judge had properly considered factors such as the appellant's contribution to the offence, age, and criminal antecedents. The penalty imposed was not outside the available range, and therefore not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal be dismissed.

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.