Anderson, Raymond John v The Queen

JUDGMENT No. .....- 27 ........ .. J ..... -7%

CATCHWORDS

Appeal - Sever i ty of sentence - Interference with

d i s c r e t i o n of t r i a l judge - Princ ip le s upon which

non-parole periods are f ixed. Federal Court of Austral ia

A c t	- 1976	s.28(1).	P a r o l e o f P r i s o n s	Ordinance	1 9 7 1
( A . C . T . )

Raymond John Anderson v . The Queen

A.C.T . No. G . 1 0 of 1977

Coram: Bowen C . J . , Smithers and Biackburn JJ .

Canberra, 21/12/1977

IN RJB F$DBRAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALW CAPlTAL TElFiI'IYIRY DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 10 of 1977

m DIVISION

ON APPEAL from the Supreme Court

of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN : RAYMOND JOHN ANDERSON

Appellant

- m : m a m

Respondent

O R D E R

JUDCES W I N G ORMSt : Bowen C. J., Smithers and Blackburn JJ.

DATE OF m :	21 December 1977.
WHEmpUE:	Canberra.
THE COURT ORaERS THAT:

The Appeal be dismissed.

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY IN !lTE F'EDER4L COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1

No. 10 of 1977

DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION I

ON APPEAL from the Supreme Court of

the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN : RAYMOND JOHIV ANDERSON

Appellant

AND:	THE QUEEN
7

Respondent

I

CORAM: Bowen C.J., Smithers	and Blackburn JJ.	',
!
I
DATE: 21 DECEMBER 1977	1

J U D G M E N T

BOWEN C.J. and BLACKBURN J.: This is an appeal against the

severity cf a sentence awarded by Connor J. in the Supreme Court

of the Australian Capital Territory, the appellant having

pleaded guilty.

Counsel for the appellant submitted, in an argument

for which the Court is indebted to him, that the effect of

s.28(1) of the Federal Court Act l976 is to give the Court

an unfettered discretion to substitute its judgment for that of

the trial Judge and pass such sentence as the Court thinks

warranted by the facts. For reasons delivered by the Court

(1477) 1s A M 631

in Kovac v. "he Queen W 9 ), we do not accept

t h i s argument. Those reasons need not be repeated here. Our

task is to decide whether the trial Judge in any way erred

in the exercise of his discretion, and unless we are satisfied

!

that he did so, we will not vary the sentence passed by him even

- 2 -

if we think it is more severe than we would have awarded in

the circumstances.

.

The appellant pleaded guilty on 3rd June 1977 to

twenty charges of making false entries with intent to defraud,

five charges of forgery, five charges of uttering and twenty

charges of embezzlement. The dates of the offences ran from

15th January 1975 to 12th August 1976. During all that time

the appellant was the sales and…