Bellas v The Queen

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.