Allsopp v The Queen

The case of *Allsopp v The Queen* concerned an appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted of an offence involving the possession of a firearm, a circumstance compounded by the fact that he was subject to a firearms prohibition order. The central dispute revolved around the sentencing judge's assessment of the appellant's evidence and the subsequent sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the appellant's evidence, specifically concerning inconsistencies between the appellant's sworn testimony and his counsel's earlier submissions, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's personal situation. The Court was required to determine if the judge had an obligation to foreshadow the weight he would place on any particular inconsistency in the appellant's account.

The Court reasoned that the sentencing judge had properly considered the appellant's evidence within the broader context of the sentencing process. The judge's remarks regarding the inconsistency between the appellant's evidence and his counsel's submissions were found to be a recital of the factual history, not the sole basis for rejecting the appellant's account. Cogent reasons were provided for rejecting the appellant's evidence independently of this specific inconsistency, and there was no requirement for the judge to pre-emptively indicate the weight to be given to such discrepancies. The Court concluded that, notwithstanding the limited factual basis upon which the appellant was sentenced, the imposed sentence fell within the proper exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion, considering both the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances.

Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds.