[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List]

Taylor v Burgoyne [2005] NTSC 68

PARTIES: TAYLOR, Adam John

BURGOYNE, Robert Roland

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FILE NO: No JA 34 of 2005 (20506112)

DELIVERED: 21 October 2005

HEARING DATE: 4 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF: SOUTHWOOD J

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – Appeal from Magistrates
CRIMINAL LAW – Assault police

Appeal against sentence, statutory interpretation mandatory sentencing s 78BA Sentencing Act, manifestly excessive

Criminal Code; Juvenile Justices Act

Curtis v Burgoyne [2005] NTSC 15; Kumantjara v Harris (1992) 109 FLR 400; R v Piercey [1971] VR 647;Robertson v Flood (1992) 111 FLR 177; White v Brown [2003] NTSC 51, applied

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: T Aickin
Respondent: C W Roberts

Solicitors:
Appellant: Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: Sou 0512
Number of pages: 13

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

Taylor v Burgoyne [2005] NTSC 68
No. JA 34 of 2005 (20506112)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against the sentence of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs

BETWEEN:

ADAM JOHN TAYLOR
Appellant

AND:

ROBERT ROLAND BURGOYNE
Respondent

CORAM: SOUTHWOOD J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 21 October 2005)

INTRODUCTION

[1] The appellant appeals against the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed on him by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 19 August 2005. After the appellant was convicted of unlawfully assaulting a police officer contrary to s 189A Criminal Code, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of two months from 19 August 2005 to be suspended after 7 days from 19 August 2005. The appellant has been on bail since 19 August 2005 pending the outcome of the appeal.

[2] The appeal is made pursuant to s 163 Justices Act. It was commenced by notice of appeal dated 19 August 2005. An amended notice of appeal was filed on 30 September 2005. There are two grounds of appeal. First, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction erred in its interpretation and application of s 78BA of the Sentencing Act (the Act). Secondly, the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed on the appellant by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction was manifestly excessive.

THE ISSUES

[3] The principal question in the appeal is do the words, “the offender has one or more times before (whether prior to or after this section commencing) been found guilty of a violent offence”, in s 78BA(1) of the Act include a finding of guilt for a violent offence that was committed by an offender when he was under 18 years of age? That is, does s 78BA of the Act require a court to impose an actual term of imprisonment for a second violent offence committed by an adult offender if the only relevant…

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 Taylor v Burgoyne

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Burgoyne [2005] NTSC 068
Case: [2005] NTSC 68
Decision Date: 21 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory considered an appeal by Adam John Taylor against the sentence imposed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Taylor was convicted of assaulting a police officer and was sentenced to two months imprisonment, suspended after seven days. The appeal focused on two grounds: the interpretation of section 78BA of the Sentencing Act and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court held that section 78BA mandates imprisonment for a second violent offence, regardless of the offender's age at the time of the first offence. This interpretation aligns with the broader purpose of the legislation to deter violent offenders. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the magistrate had appropriately balanced deterrence and rehabilitation, considering Taylor's background, the nature of the offence, and the need to protect police officers. The appeal was dismissed, and the court will hear the parties regarding costs and any ancillary orders.

Orders