Bridges, Pierre Elie v The Queen

[1995] FCA 877

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY     )
DISTRICT REGISTRY                )    AG 33 of 1995
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN:     PIERRE ELIE BRIDGES

Appellant

AND:     THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: Burchett, Lee and Tamberlin JJ.
PLACE: Canberra
DATE : 25 October 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

In this matter the appellant appeals against sentence, and also against the total period before his release which has been prescribed by his Honour.  There was, it is accepted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, an error - of a technical nature - in respect of the fixing of the period before release, insofar as it was made up of two periods, each of one year, described by his Honour as "non-parole periods"; whereas one of those periods was fixed in respect of an offence under the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, the sentence in relation to which required, not the fixing of a non-parole period, but rather the making of an order under s. 20 of that Act.

For the Director of Public Prosecutions, it was submitted that the Court ought to vary the orders made in order to correct that matter, and also in order to eliminate one of several concurrent sentences.  This sentence, in a somewhat ambiguous part of the sentencing remarks, appears to have been imposed in respect of a matter which - consistently with what his Honour elsewhere said - should rather have been the subject of a statement that it was inexpedient to impose a penalty.  The question then becomes whether the total of the sentences and the total period before release, which it is clear to us his Honour intended to prescribe, judged in the light of the principles set out in McDonald v The Queen (1994) 48 FCR 555, should be interfered with upon appeal.

We are all of the opinion that, far from any excessiveness being shown in either respect, his Honour appears to have given the fullest possible weight, in the fixing of the total period of the sentences and of the period to be served, which he could possibly have given to all of those factors that might weigh in favour of the appellant.  Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the orders made below be varied in the manner set out in the form of orders submitted on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as amended during the course of the submissions, and that otherwise the appeal should be dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Date: 31 October 1995

Counsel for the Appellant:       Mr J.V. Sabharwal

Solicitors for the Appellant:        Gary Robb & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent:      Mr G.C. Lalor

Solicitor for the Respondent:        The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Date of hearing:                 25 October 1995