T, NTJ & N, JA v Police - [2011] SASC 96

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
T, NTJ & N, JA v POLICE
[2011] SASC 96
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan
17 June 2011
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER
Appeal pursuant to section 22 of Youth Court Act against sentence imposed by Magistrate of Youth Court - both appellants convicted of aggravated assault - conviction recorded - entry into obligation to be of good behaviour for two years.
Appeal against finding of guilt and recording of conviction.
Whether Magistrate failed to give sufficient reasons for finding the charge proved - whether Magistrate considered sentencing principles for young offenders.
Held: Appeal dismissed in respect of finding that the charge was proved.
Appeal allowed in relation to sentence. No conviction recorded.
Youth Court Act 1993 (SA) s 22; Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA) s 3, referred to.
R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Power (2003) 141 A Crim R 203; Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; Papps v Police (2000) 77 SASR 210; Gikas v Police (1999) 202 LSJS 301; A, MC v Police (2008) 102 SASR 151; R v Lambert [2009] SASC 307; R v Weaver (1973) 6 SASR 265; Hendy v Kraft (1991) 55 SASR 345; W, LO v Police [2008] SASC 324; R v QTV (2003) 87 SASR 378, considered.

T, NTJ & N, JA v POLICE
[2011] SASC 96
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

SULAN J: This is an appeal pursuant to s 22(2)(c) of the Youth Court Act 1993 (SA) against a sentence imposed by a Magistrate of the Youth Court. The appellants NTJT (T) and JAN (N) were convicted of aggravated assault. It was alleged that they together assaulted Nicole Martino on 19 November 2009. Both T and N appeal against this conviction. Both appellants also appeal against the decision of the Magistrate to record a conviction. In each case they have entered into an obligation to be of good behaviour for two years in the sum of $200.
Both T and N complain that the Magistrate failed to give sufficient reasons for finding them guilty, submitting that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In each case I granted leave to file the notice of appeal out of time.
Background
On 19 November 2009 Ms Martino was driving her Holden Barina towards her home. Her then boyfriend Troy Coyle was a passenger in the car. Mr Coyle had been in a previous relationship with T. A blue Daewoo sedan driven by N drove up and according to Ms Martino attempted to force her vehicle off the road. T was a passenger in N’s car. N followed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read T, NTJ & N, JA v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] SASC 96
Decision Date: 17 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of T, NTJ & N, JA v Police, the appellants, T and N, sought an appeal against the sentences imposed by the Youth Court Magistrate. Both appellants were convicted of aggravated assault and were subject to an obligation to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The appeal was lodged under section 22 of the Youth Court Act, challenging the legality of the sentence and the process by which it was determined. The primary contention was the failure of the Youth Court to provide reasons for its decision on the sentence, which the appellants argued constituted an error of law.

The legal issues that came before the court revolved around the appellants' right to appeal and the specific circumstances in which an appeal lies, particularly when there is an alleged error of law concerning the failure to give reasons for a decision. The court had to determine whether the lack of reasons provided by the Youth Court for its sentencing decision constituted a significant error that warranted an appeal and potentially a new trial.

The court found that the Youth Court's failure to provide reasons for its sentencing decision did indeed constitute an error of law. This omission was deemed significant as it impacted the appellants' right to a fair and reasoned decision-making process. The court emphasised the importance of providing reasons for judicial decisions, especially in cases involving the imposition of sentences on young offenders. Given this error, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial to ensure that the appellants received a reasoned and legally sound sentence.

In conclusion, the court's decision highlights the critical nature of providing adequate reasons for judicial decisions, particularly in youth court matters. The failure to do so not only undermines the integrity of the judicial process but also affects the appellants' rights. The final order of the court was to allow the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and order a new trial to be conducted with appropriate reasons provided for the sentencing decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

In each case I granted leave to file the notice of appeal out of time. Background On 19 November 2009 Ms Martino was driving her Holden Barina towards her home. Her then boyfriend Troy Coyle was a passenger in the car. Mr Coyle had been in a previous relationship with T. A blue Daewoo sedan driven by N drove up and according to Ms Martino attempted to force her vehicle off the road. T was a passenger in N’s car. N followed Ms Martino for a short time and as Ms Martino approached her home, N drove off. Ms Martino gave evidence that later that day she was driving her father’s utility when she was flagged down by two occupants of a motor vehicle, who she later recognised was T and N. Ms Martino stopped her vehicle. She said she had half opened the driver’s door when she was pulled by the hair from her car by N, overpowered, dragged to the ground and struck on the head by an object carried by T. She was punched whilst on the ground by N. She was also struck several times by N who was holding a long object in her hand. She saw a man who had alighted from a car call out to the girls to drop the screwdriver. She did not see a screwdriver. N and T left shortly thereafter. Ms Martino gave evidence that a young woman driving a Holden Barina stopped and gave her N’s name. That woman did not wish to be identified and Ms Martino did not know her. She went home and reported the incident to the police. Ms Martino agreed that at one stage she had grabbed the pole when N dropped it and had swung it at T. A witness, Chad Miric, was driving home. He saw three girls fighting. He stopped. He did not know any of the girls involved. He identified N and T in Court as the attackers. He saw Ms Martino on the ground. He yelled at them. They then returned to their car. One appeared to be carrying what he described as a screwdriver. They drove off. He described the pole as black or blue with insulation tape wound around it. He described that he initially saw the girls fighting but Ms Martino went to the ground. David Boyd was also driving home. He saw girls fighting. He described two girls on the ground and one standing holding a pole which he says was blue with black electrical tape around it. He said that the pole produced in court was not the pole he saw. He saw Miric approach the girls, at which point the two attacking girls left. Mr Coyle gave evidence that he was a passenger in Ms Martino’s car just after midday on the relevant day. He said that he became aware they were being followed when a small car attempted to overtake them on the right whilst attempting to force Ms Martino’s vehicle into the gutter. He recognised the passenger in the other car to be T, with whom he had previously had a short-term relationship. He was not with Ms Martino at the time of the alleged assault, though he later received a message from her informing him that she had been attacked by T and N. He then went over to her house and witnessed her injuries. Constable Hanton was the investigating officer. He took a statement from Ms Martino at the Elizabeth Police Station. He organised photos to be taken of the injuries to her face, neck and arms. Upon leaving the police station Ms Martino saw T and N whom she identified to police. Constable Hanton did not conduct interviews with T and N at the time because they were youths. He informed them that interviews would be conducted at a later stage in the presence of their parents. He observed that T had a lump on her head. He later interviewed T in the presence of her mother. He also attempted to speak to N in the presence of her father; N declined to answer any questions. One girl had a green pole which Constable Hanton took. He examined the green pole and saw no evidence of any blood or hairs on it. No forensic examination of the pole was conducted.

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.