Achurch v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Achurch against a decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. Achurch had been convicted of drug offences and sentenced, but the Crown successfully appealed against those sentences. The Court of Criminal Appeal, in re-sentencing Achurch, had applied reasoning that was later held to be erroneous in *Muldrock v The Queen*. Achurch then applied under s 43 of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999* (NSW) to have the re-sentencing proceedings reopened, but this application was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the sentences imposed by the re-sentencing court were "contrary to law" within the meaning of s 43 of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999* (NSW). This required the Court to determine the scope of the phrase "contrary to law" in the context of a court's discretion to reopen criminal proceedings. The appellant contended that an error of law in the sentencing process was sufficient to render the penalty "contrary to law," while the Court of Criminal Appeal had held that such an error only made the penalty contrary to law if it resulted in a sentence outside the lawful range of discretion.

The High Court reasoned that the plain text of s 43, which confers a power to reopen proceedings to impose a penalty "in accordance with the law" where a penalty has been imposed "contrary to law," did not support a broad interpretation that encompassed any error of law or fact. The Court emphasised the principle of finality in legal proceedings, stating that such a significant qualification to this principle would require clear statutory language. A penalty is not "contrary to law" merely because it was reached through erroneous reasoning or factual error; rather, it must fall outside the legally permissible range of penalties. The Court concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeal had not erred in its application of s 43, as the sentences imposed were not contrary to law.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal.