Katie Louise Walker v Kendelle Morgan Treloar

KATIE LOUISE WALKER v KENDELLE MORGAN TRELOAR
[2013] ACTSC 100 (17 MAY 2013)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 17

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 96 of 2012

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 17 May 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 96 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:KATIE LOUISE WALKER

Appellant

AND:KENDELLE MORGAN TRELOAR
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  17 May 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be upheld.

The conviction and penalty be set aside and the appellant enter into a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 12 months in the sum of $200.

Even without an error being found expressly, if there is fresh evidence, then one considers it in the light of that fresh evidence.

In the circumstances, and given the fresh evidence, the conviction and penalty should be set aside and, in lieu thereof, the matter be dealt with under section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) with the condition that the appellant enter into a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 12 months in the sum of $200.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.
Associate:
Date: 30 May 2013

Counsel for the Appellant:  Ms J Campbell
Solicitor for the Appellant:  Women’s Legal Centre (ACT & Region)
Counsel for the Respondent:  Mr Sahu-Khan
Solicitor for the Respondent:  ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing:  17 May 2013
Date of judgment:  17 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Katie Louise Walker was involved in a dispute with Kendelle Morgan Treloar, which was brought before the court. The case was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The nature of the dispute centred around an appeal by Walker against her conviction and penalty for driving without due care and attention, as well as for exceeding the speed limit. The appeal was primarily concerned with the adequacy of the direction given to the jury by the trial judge regarding the assessment of the appellant's culpability and the consideration of mitigating factors.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the trial judge had erred in the direction given to the jury, whether the jury's assessment of the appellant's culpability was sufficient, and whether the penalty imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appeal should be upheld and what appropriate orders should be made in light of the appeal.

The court found that the trial judge had not adequately directed the jury regarding the assessment of the appellant's culpability and the consideration of mitigating factors. The court held that the trial judge's direction was insufficient, as it did not provide the jury with the necessary guidance to properly consider the appellant's culpability and the mitigating factors. The court also found that the penalty imposed was excessive, given the mitigating factors and the appellant's otherwise good character. As a result, the court decided to uphold the appeal, set aside the conviction and penalty, and enter the appellant into a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 12 months in the sum of $200.

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be upheld.

2. The conviction and penalty be set aside and the appellant enter into a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 12 months in the sum of $200.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established