Banks v The Queen

The Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal by Wayne Alan Banks against the severity of a sentence imposed by a single judge of the Supreme Court. Banks had pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, one count of possessing housebreaking implements, and one count of possession of stolen property, which involved 195 items valued at approximately $150,000. A further offence of possessing goods reasonably suspected of being stolen was taken into account for sentencing purposes.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed, particularly the non-parole period, was manifestly excessive, indicating an error of fact or principle. The appellant's counsel contended that the sentence was so markedly excessive as to demonstrate error, although no specific factual or principled errors were identified. The court also considered an application to adduce fresh evidence relating to the appellant's family circumstances and his completion of training courses while in custody.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the offence of possessing stolen property, especially when involving a large quantity and value of goods stolen over an extended period from numerous victims, is a serious offence that encourages further dishonesty. The court noted that the sentencing judge had properly considered objective factors such as the number and value of the goods, the systematic nature of the receiving, and the motivation of greed, as well as subjective factors including the guilty plea and the appellant's criminal record, albeit with a significant gap since his last offence. The court found that the fresh evidence sought to be adduced was either known to the sentencing judge or related to events post-sentencing, and therefore not relevant to demonstrating an appealable error by the sentencing judge.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found no error of fact or principle in the sentencing decision and was not persuaded that the sentence fell outside the reasonable discretion available to the sentencing judge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.