Bellas v The Queen - [2006] NTCCA 8

Bellas v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 8
PARTIES:BELLAS, Justin Lee
v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 15 of 2005 (20417550, 20504823)
DELIVERED:  13 APRIL 2006
HEARING DATES:  14 FEBRUARY 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  ANGEL ACJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ
APPEAL FROM:  R v Bellas, Sentencing Remarks, Thomas J, 17 June 2005
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW

Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Two Commonwealth Indictments – Sentence in respect of each Indictment manifestly excessive in all the circumstances – Total effective sentence for all offending nevertheless proportionate to overall criminality – Individual sentences fall for consideration not just their overall effect – Court of Criminal Appeal to intervene if individual sentences beyond sentencing discretion of sentencing judge – Appeal allowed.
Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth)
Markarian (2005) 215 ALR 213
Rhode (1985) 17 A Crim R 166
Institoris (2002) 129 A Crim R 458
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Grant (VIC CCA, 27 June 1994, unreported)
Liddy v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 4
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I. Read
Respondent:  P. Usher
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Mil06373
Number of pages:  23

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Bellas v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 8

No. CA 15 of 2005 (20417550, 20504823)
BETWEEN:

JUSTIN LEE BELLAS
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: ANGEL, MILDREN & RILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 13 April 2006)
Angel ACJ:

I agree with the orders proposed by Mildren J and I do so substantially for the reasons expressed by both Mildren J and Riley J.
I agree that the sentence imposed with respect to each Commonwealth indictment was manifestly excessive. I also agree that the total effective sentence in respect of all the appellant’s offending was proportionate to the overall criminality of the appellant.
The restructured sentence, whilst coinciding in result with the total effective sentence of the learned sentencing judge, has been arrived at by a fresh independent exercise of sentencing discretion by the members of this Court on appeal. I emphasise this lest there be any suggestion that this Court has engaged in what McHugh J, in Markarian (2005) 215 ALR 213 at [71], [84], referred to as “junk science” or “pseudo–science”.
Mildren J:
The facts and circumstances relating to this appeal are set out in the judgment of Riley J and I will not repeat them.
In my opinion the sentences imposed by the learned sentencing Judge in relation to both of the Commonwealth indictments are manifestly excessive. In addition, in my opinion, her Honour erred in relation to the second Commonwealth indictment in failing to reduce the head sentence to reflect the appellant’s early plea, remorse and cooperation.
As to the sentence on the first Commonwealth indictment dated 17 February 2005, I consider that the following matters…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bellas v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bellas v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 8
Case: [2006] NTCCA 8
Decision Date: 13 APRIL 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bellas appealed against sentences imposed by the sentencing judge in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The appellant had pleaded guilty to two Commonwealth indictments, one concerning the counterfeiting of currency and the other relating to the possession of counterfeit currency. The appeal concerned whether the individual sentences imposed for each indictment were manifestly excessive, notwithstanding that the total effective sentence might be considered proportionate to the overall criminality.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether it was open to the court to intervene and reduce individual sentences if they were found to be outside the proper exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion, even if the aggregate sentence was not demonstrably excessive. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to multiple Commonwealth offences, and the extent to which individual sentences should reflect the gravity of each distinct offence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reasoned that while the overall criminality of the appellant's conduct warranted a significant total sentence, the sentencing judge had erred in imposing individual sentences that were disproportionate to the specific offending in each indictment. Applying the principles established in cases such as *Markarian* and *Pearce v The Queen*, the court held that it retained the power to review and adjust individual sentences if they were demonstrably outside the proper sentencing discretion, even if the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the individual sentences imposed were indeed excessive and that intervention was warranted.

The appeal was allowed. The Court of Criminal Appeal varied the sentences imposed on each indictment, resulting in a reduced total effective sentence.

Orders