Wesley v The Queen - [2014] NTCCA 17

Wesley v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 17

PARTIES: WESLEY, Teddy

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 6 of 2014 (21346451)
DELIVERED:  17 October 2014
HEARING DATES:  25 September 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Riley CJ, Kelly and Blokland JJ
APPEALED FROM:  Hiley J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Relevant sentencing factors – Rehabilitation – Sentencing Judge did not fail to accord proper weight to the appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Relevant sentencing factors – Rehabilitation – Failure to order a pre-sentence report – No failure where the necessary information was before the Court in a psychiatric report.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Co-offenders – Principal of parity – Similar sentences imposed – No disparity in sentences.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Manifest excess – Non-parole period – Juvenile offenders – No minimum non-parole period – Non-parole period manifestly excessive –Appellant resentenced – Non-parole period reduced from two years and six months to 18 months.
Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT) ss 69, 70.
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT).
R v Gurruwiwi (2008) 23 NTLR 68, applied.
R v Liddy [2005] NTCCA 4, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J Tippett QC
Respondent:  P Usher
Solicitors:
Appellant:Maley and Burrows
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Number of pages:  18

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Wesley v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 17

No CA 6 of 2014 (21346451)
BETWEEN:

TEDDY WESLEY

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY CJ, KELLY AND BLOKLAND JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 October 2014)
THE COURT:

On 25 September 2014 the Court allowed the appeal of the appellant to a limited extent and resentenced him accordingly. These are the reasons for doing so.
The offending
The appellant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to 10 charges arising out of two separate incidents which occurred on 17 and 18 October 2013. The offending consisted of assaults upon nine separate victims whilst the appellant was in company with other people. At the time of the offending the appellant was aged 15 years and 10 months. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years with a non-parole period of two years and six months. He appealed against that sentence on a range of grounds.
The offending conduct commenced at about 8:30 pm on 17 October 2013 with what was described as the first incident. The appellant and two co-offenders were driving along Trower Road in Casuarina when they observed a cousin of the appellant, Jessica Hewitt, walking with three young men, Jake Watterston, Jeremy Dux and Kingsley Martin. The young men were walking her home at her request. The driver, Robert Wesley (a cousin of the appellant), stopped the vehicle near the four people and yelled out, “What are you doing with my cousin? What are…

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 Wesley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wesley v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 17
Case: [2014] NTCCA 17
Decision Date: 17 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the appellant, Wesley, against the decision of the sentencing judge. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentencing judge had failed to accord proper weight to the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation, whether there was a failure to order a pre-sentence report, and whether the non-parole period imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the principle of parity with co-offenders.

The Full Court found that the sentencing judge had not failed to consider the appellant's rehabilitation, noting that a psychiatric report before the court contained relevant information regarding this aspect. Consequently, the absence of a separate pre-sentence report was not a fatal flaw. Furthermore, the court determined that the sentences imposed on co-offenders were not so dissimilar as to create an unjust disparity. However, the court concluded that the non-parole period of two years and six months was manifestly excessive for a juvenile offender.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part. The appellant was resentenced, with the non-parole period being reduced to 18 months.

Orders