Worumbu v Hales - [2003] NTSC 79

Worumbu v Hales [2003] NTSC 79
PARTIES:STEVEN JAMES WORUMBU
v

PETER WILLIAM HALES

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 103 of 2002 (20215058)
DELIVERED:  17 July 2003
HEARING DATE:  17 July 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S. Barlow
Respondent:  J. Karczewski QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  ril0323
Number of pages:  9

ril0323
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Worumbu v Hales [2003] NTSC 79
No. JA 103 of 2002 (20215058)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin

BETWEEN:
STEVEN JAMES WORUMBU

Appellant
AND:
PETER WILLIAM HALES

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 July 2003)

On 9 October 2002 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to two offences appearing in the same information. The first was assault with the circumstance of aggravation that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon, namely a knife. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 5 years, although, when dealt with summarily, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction could only impose a sentence of imprisonment of up to 2 years. The second was going armed in public, with a knife, in such manner as to cause fear to a person of reasonable firmness and courage. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 3 years.

The circumstances of the offending were not in dispute. On 8 October 2002, the day before the plea was entered, the appellant had been at the Palmerston Shopping Centre where he met with his cousin. The appellant had been drinking and was intoxicated at the time. At the shopping centre he approached the victim of the aggravated assault, Dion Martin, and punched him on the left-hand side of the nose with a closed fist. A fight then developed and the appellant’s cousin joined in the fight against the victim. The cousin then left the building and obtained a black-handled knife, approximately 30 centimetres in length with a 15 centimetre long blade, from a motor vehicle. He returned to the shopping centre and gave the knife to the appellant. The appellant then approached Mr Martin and, with the knife, chased him through the shopping centre. The victim was very frightened and jumped over the Coles cigarette counter in order to escape the appellant. Witnesses to the scene were, not surprisingly, also very frightened.
The appellant was approached by police at the shopping centre but ran away. He dropped the knife, which was seized by police. He was subsequently arrested and participated in a record of interview. When asked for his reason for acting as he did, he said: “Cause I was drunk”. He said he carried the knife for various…

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 Worumbu v Hales

Details

AGLC: Worumbu v Hales [2003] NTSC 79
Case: [2003] NTSC 79
Decision Date: 17 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven James Worumbu brought an appeal against the sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction by Peter William Hales. The appellant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 12 months imprisonment, suspended after 3 weeks. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that it was imposed in contravention of the terms of s 52(3) of the Sentencing Act. The respondent conceded that an aggregate sentence is not available in the circumstances of this matter and that the appeal must therefore be allowed. The court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 10 months in respect of the assault and a sentence of imprisonment of 5 months in respect of the offence of going armed in public would be appropriate. The court allowed the appeal and sentenced the appellant accordingly.
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine months, suspended after 3 weeks. The appellant is to place himself under the supervision of the Director of Correctional Services for a period of 12 months and obey the directions of the Director or his delegate. The operational period for the purposes of s 40(6) and s 43 of the Sentencing Act is set at 3 years.

Orders