Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) against a sentence imposed on Mr. Bui, who had pleaded guilty to importing a marketable quantity of a border-controlled drug. Mr. Bui was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, to be released immediately upon providing security for good behaviour for that period. The Director appealed this sentence, arguing it was unduly lenient.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether certain Victorian provisions, which purported to allow appeals against sentence without regard to the principle of double jeopardy, were applicable to a prosecution appeal against a federal offence. This involved considering whether the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) incorporated these Victorian provisions, or whether a common law principle of double jeopardy, picked up by the *Judiciary Act*, or the sentencing provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth), prevented or required consideration of double jeopardy in this context.

The High Court reasoned that the sentencing provisions of s 16A of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) did not accommodate the principle of double jeopardy as relied upon by the appellant. The Court found that the judge-made rule against double jeopardy did not apply in the context of s 16A, and therefore, there was no need to consider whether the Victorian provisions were picked up by the *Judiciary Act*. The Court concluded that re-sentencing could occur under s 16A without reference to the presumed anxiety and distress on re-sentencing, as this was not a matter to which the Court was required to have regard.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.