Taylor v Siebert - [2023] NTSC 43

CITATION: Taylor v Siebert [2023] NTSC 43

PARTIES: TAYLOR, William

v
SIEBERT, Kelly Marie

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: APPEAL from LOCAL COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction

FILE NO: LCA 8 of 2023 (22306239)

DELIVERED: 23 May 2023

HEARING DATE: 23 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF: Grant CJ

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: J Lumsden with J Bourke
Respondent: L Williamson

Solicitors:

Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:          C
Judgment ID Number:  GRA2306
Number of pages:  7

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Taylor v Siebert [2023] NTSC 43

LCA 8 of 2023 (22306239)
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM TAYLOR
Appellant

AND:
KELLY MARIE SIEBERT
Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered ex tempore on 23 May 2023)

On 8 March 2023, the appellant pleaded guilty to three offences before the Local Court. Those offences were driving unlicensed, driving unregistered and driving without a current compensation contribution contrary to ss 32, 33 and 34 respectively of the Traffic Act 1987 (NT). The maximum penalty for the first and second offences was 12 months imprisonment or a fine of 20 penalty units, while the maximum penalty for the third offence was a fine of 100 penalty units.
The Local Court convicted the appellant of all three offences and imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of one month which was wholly suspended subject to an operational period of 12 months. The appellant brings this appeal on the grounds that the Local Court erred by acting on a wrong principle in failing to consider and exclude alternatives to imprisonment; that the Local Court erred in failing to give adequate reasons; and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The imposition of sentence is a discretionary determination. An appeal court will not set aside or vary a discretionary determination of that type unless it is satisfied that the sentence is infected by an error of the type identified in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499. An error of that type will include a failure to take into account relevant matters; having regard to irrelevant matters; acting on a wrong principle; and what might compendiously be described as unreasonableness in the outcome, even where no specific error can be identified. In the case of an appeal against sentence by an offender, in order for the outcome to be characterised as unreasonable the sentence must be plainly and obviously excessive.
In the event that the appeal court finds specific error in the course of the sentencing process, it is incumbent on the appeal court to make its own determination or assessment in a fresh exercise of the sentencing discretion. In such a case, the appeal court will not vary the sentence if it thinks that the same or a higher sentence would be passed if it were to exercise the discretion itself. However, where specific error has been demonstrated, the appeal court may reduce the sentence if in the…

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 Siebert

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Siebert [2023] NTSC 43
Case: [2023] NTSC 43
Decision Date: 23 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Taylor, the appellant, appealed against a sentence imposed by the Local Court for offences of driving unlicensed, driving unregistered, and driving without a current compensation contribution. The Local Court had imposed a wholly suspended sentence of one month's imprisonment, subject to an operational period of 12 months. Taylor argued that the Local Court had erred in failing to consider alternatives to imprisonment, in not providing adequate reasons, and in imposing a manifestly excessive sentence.

The court considered that the appeal court would not interfere with a discretionary determination unless there was an error of the type identified in House v The King. Such errors include failure to consider relevant matters, acting on a wrong principle, and unreasonableness in the outcome. The Local Court had imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment in circumstances where one of the offences was not one for which a sentence of imprisonment was an available option under the statutory prescription of penalty. The court set aside the sentence and exercised the sentencing discretion afresh, subject to the judicial restraint against imposing a higher sentence.

The court considered the appellant's criminal history, which showed a pattern of offending with no real attempt at rehabilitation. The court considered that in the ordinary course, offending with the bare features of this case would ordinarily attract the imposition of a fine rather than imprisonment, even in circumstances where the offender has a relevant criminal history. The court considered that a wholly suspended period of imprisonment might be considered a less onerous disposition for the appellant than a further accretion to the great sum of money he already owed to the Territory by way of unpaid fines. However, the appeal had been pressed in the pursuit of principle rather than the appellant's personal financial interests.

The court ordered that the sentence to imprisonment of one month wholly suspended subject to an operational period of 12 months which was imposed by the Local Court on 8 March 2023 was set aside. The court convicted the appellant of the three offences and sentenced him to an aggregate fine of 10 penalty units.

Orders