Barbaro v The Queen

In *Barbaro v The Queen*, the applicants, Pasquale Barbaro and Saverio Zirilli, appealed to the High Court of Australia after pleading guilty to federal offences. The central dispute concerned the sentencing judge's refusal to receive submissions from the prosecution regarding the available range of sentences that could be imposed. The applicants argued that this refusal was procedurally unfair and amounted to a failure to consider a relevant factor in sentencing.

The High Court was required to determine whether a sentencing judge is obliged to receive and consider submissions from the prosecution concerning the available range of sentences for a federal offence. Further, the Court had to consider whether such a submission constitutes a submission of law, and if its exclusion amounts to a denial of procedural fairness or a failure to take into account a relevant consideration under section 16A of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth).

The Court reasoned that a submission by the prosecution about the bounds of the available sentencing range is merely an opinion and not a submission of law. Consequently, a sentencing judge is not required, and indeed should not, take such an opinion into account when fixing sentences. The Court affirmed that sentencing discretion must be exercised judicially, according to rules of reason and justice, and that section 16A of the *Crimes Act* requires the imposition of a sentence appropriate to the circumstances of the offence. The Court concluded that the applicants were not denied procedural fairness and that no relevant consideration was ignored by the sentencing judge.

Special leave to appeal was granted in both matters, but the appeals were treated as instituted, heard instanter, and ultimately dismissed.