Turley v The Queen - [2019] NTCCA 4

CITATION:Turley v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 4
PARTIES:TURLEY, Glen Cecil
v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 2 of 2018 (21708184)
DELIVERED:  10 January 2019
HEARING DATE:  28 August 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ, Kelly and Blokland JJ

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – MANIFEST EXCESS
Whether sentence manifestly excessive – no manifest excess having regard to seriousness of the offending, aggravating factors and maximum penalties – leave to appeal granted and appeal dismissed.
Bara v The Queen [2016] NTCCA 5, Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 349 ALR 37, Emitja v The Queen [2016] NTCCA 4, Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, Morrow v The Queen [2013] NTCCA 7, Whitlock v The Queen [2018] NTCCA 7, referred to.
CRIMINAL LAW – SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – REDUCTION FOR GUILTY PLEA
Whether greater reduction than 25 per cent ought to have been allowed for pleas of guilty – whether in cases of sexual offending against children there are public policy considerations for larger reductions to encourage guilty pleas – difficulties of proof in child sex cases – additional value of sparing victims trauma of having to give evidence – sentencing court not limited in the circumstances to a discount of 25 per cent – no standard or maximum reduction in recognition of a plea of guilty – sentencing court may exercise a wide discretion in according leniency in recognition of the value of a guilty plea – strong Crown case which included admissions made by the applicant in pretext telephone calls and a recorded interview – three victims whose evidence was mutually admissible – significant corroboration – applicant showed no remorse – no greater reduction or less severe sentence warranted – leave to appeal granted and appeal dismissed.
DF v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 13, JKL v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 7, Kelly v The Queen (2000) 10 NTLR 39, R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603, R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225, Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267, Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656, Staats v The Queen (1998) 123 NTR 16, Whitlock v The Queen [2018] NTCCA 7, Wright v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 5, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:JCA Tippett QC
Respondent:  M Nathan SC
Solicitors:
Applicant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Number of pages:  25

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Turley v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 4

No. CA 2 of 2018 (21708184)

BETWEEN:

GLEN CECIL TURLEY

Applicant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ, KELLY and BLOKLAND JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 10…

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 Turley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Turley v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 4
Case: [2019] NTCCA 4
Decision Date: 10 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Turley v The Queen* concerned the applicant's challenge to the severity of his sentence. The applicant, Turley, was appealing against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the sentence imposed upon the applicant was manifestly excessive. This required the Court to consider the seriousness of the offences, any aggravating factors present, and the maximum penalties prescribed by law for such offences.

The Court granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. In its reasoning, the Court found that, having regard to the gravity of the offending conduct, the presence of aggravating factors, and the statutory maximum penalties, the sentence imposed was not demonstrably excessive. The Court applied established principles for assessing the manifest excessiveness of a sentence, weighing the relevant considerations to conclude that the sentence fell within the appropriate range.

Orders