resources
Document Actions
Australia
Up one level- Justice Gray. R v Police. No. SCCIV-02-1261 [2002] SASC 403.
- Appeal against sentence- Young Offender. The appellant and others stole a letter box and caused damage to school property after attending two parties - alcohol and drugs consumed - appellant pleaded guilty on the basis of joint enterprise and was convicted, sentenced to two months detention - suspended - ordered to perform community service - whether magistrate erred in failing to consider the utility of referring the matter to a family conference - statutory diversion and its purpose in the Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA) - the fettered police discretion to divert - the unfettered judidical discretion to divert - no consideration given by magistrate to the impact of convictions on appellant - whether error in recording convictions - the power to impose a period of detention without recording a conviction - the ambit of section 16 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) and section 17 of the Young Offenders Act - erroneous approach to proceed on the basis that no power to order a period of detention without imposing a conviction - impact of convictions - importance of rehabilitation when dealing with young offenders - the effect of a curfew on sentence - partial deprivation of liberty is a relevant factor to be considered when sentencing - principles governing the reception of fresh evidence - whether new information about the possible inability to obtain a visa overseas was evidence in the nature of fresh evidence - whether appellant's decision to undertake additional community service as a permanent volunteer with the Country Fire Service over and above his ordered community service obligations was in the nature of fresh evidence - error demonstrated - appeal allowed - appellant re-sentenced. (excerpt)
- Briggs, Daniel and Auty, Kate. Koori Court Victoria – Magistrates Court (Koori Court) Act 2002.
- The introduction of Koori Courts in Victoria pursuant to the Magistrates Court (Koori Court) Act 2002 has not been without its detractors and like all change, is attended by controversies. Steps which attempt to ‘move the law along’ (as if she were an old bag lady), are often seen as a threat to the legitimacy of the legal system. Before we even commenced sitting at Shepparton by the Bayunga or Koriella river, known to non-Aboriginal people as the Goulburn, our regional Koori court was the subject of criticism with members of the legal profession commenting that Aboriginal people would not be able to find their way to the court, or that they would ‘go walkabout’ on the day of the hearing (Herald Sun 6/5/2002). This early criticism was met by much positive commentary (The Age October 2002). Nevertheless criticism continued, when a senior member of the Victorian bar, citing the establishing Act incorrectly, suggested that the Koori Court ‘tipped the scales’ and provided ‘luxury’ or ‘special’ courts and some ill-defined special regime of sentencing options (Galbally, Herald Sun 13/3/2003). He also contrasted the banning of Father Christmas from child-minding centres with the Koori Court initiative. The Victorian Attorney General, Rob Hulls criticised the ‘impaired logic’ which underpinned this commentary (Herald Sun 14/3/2003). It is timely to put the controversy and distractions to one side and start seriously considering what we do in the Koori Court in Victoria. (excerpt)
- Supreme court of Queensland. R v Tran; ex parte A-G
- In this case, the Attorney-General of Queensland appealed against the sentence imposed upon the respondent for the offense of armed robbery with personal violence. The respondent had been sentenced to serve a 12 month intensive correction order and to pay a significant amount in compensation. Certain aspects of the adjudication of this case featured a restorative justice approach, particularly in that the complainant (victim) was consulted in the determination of the sentencing outcome. After reviewing the facts of the case and principles of restorative justice, the court denied the appeal and upheld the lower court’s sentencing order.
- Chief Justice Spigelman and Justice Simpson and Associate Justice Smart and Justice Simpson. R v Qutami.
- In Regina v. Hami Qutami, the Crown or government appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court upon Hami Qutami for the offense of soliciting to murder. The District Court sentenced Qutami to imprisonment of four years, five months, and twenty one days, with a non-parole period of eleven months and twenty one days. The Crown appealed on grounds of the inadequacy of the sentence. This document summarizes the facts of the case; the District Court judge’s findings which led to the sentencing disposition (including the offender’s religious and cultural background, current social situation, the community setting and support, emotional state, medical state, character, and prospects for reconciliation with the prospective victim and restoration of community harmony); the Crown’s arguments for a more severe sentence; and the Court of Criminal Appeal’s ruling.
