Carbon, Leslie Raymond v The Queen

[1984] FCA 93

C r i m i n a l law - manslaughter - a p o e a l a g a i n s r s e v e r i t y of

sen tence boT1: a s t o head sentence and non-parole period -

o r i n c i p l e s a p p l y i n g t o a p e a i s a g a i n s t s e n t e n c e	-	appeal
3ismisseZ.

Crlnnlnal L a w (Conditional Release of 3 f f e n d e r s ) Act

Pa ro le of Pr i soners ' Act

The Oueen v . T a i t ( 1 9 7 9 ) 4 6 FLR 3 8 6

R . v . Pr indab le ( 1 9 7 9 ) 2 3 ALR 6 6 5

Channon v . R . ( 1 9 7 8 ) 2 0 ALR

Arderson v . R . ( 1 9 7 8 ) 1 9 ALR

R . v . Eckhard t ( 1 ? 7 1 ) 1 SASR 3117

LESLIZ RAYMOND CP.RBON v. THZ OUEEN

No. NTG 3 2 of 1 9 8 3

MUIRHEAD, TOOYEY E McC-REGOR JJ.

DARWIN

1 3 A P R I L 1 9 8 4

c

I N THE FEDERAL COURT )

OF AUSTRALIA	)
NORTHERN TERRITOZV	)
OF AUSTRALIA	1 No. NTG 3 2 of 1 9 8 3

DISTRICT EGISTRY )

GENERAL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL from t h e S u o r e r n e Court of

t he Northern T e r r i t o r y of Australia

LESLIE RAYMOND CARBON

A D D e l l a n t

and

THY QUEEN

R e s p o n d e n t

O R D E R

JUDGES MAKING ORDER Mulrhead, T o o h e y E McGregor JJ

DATE OF ORDER 1 3 A p r l l 1 9 8 4

WHERE MADE Darwln

T9E COURT ORDERS T'UA-T:

1. T h e a?Deal be d ismissed

I N THE FEDCRAL COURT)

Or AUSTRALIA

NORTHERX TERRITORY

OF AUSTRALIA	No.	NTG	3 2 of 1 9 8 3
DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL D I V I S I O N )

OK ADPEAL from the Supreme

Court of the Nor thern

T e r r i t o r y	o f	A u s t r a l i a
BETWEEN :

LESLIE RAYMOND CARBON

Apoel lant

AND :

-

THE OUEEN

Resuondent

CORAM:	Fui rhead , Toohey E McGregor JJ.
13 April 1984

REASONS FOR ,TUDG?IENT

THE COURT

The a p p e l l a n t was i n d i c t e d on a charge of murdering

Karl John	Smith	on	2 5 A u r i l 1 9 8 3 a t Bartalumba	Bay,	Croote
Eylandt .

The trlal beFan i n t h e Suoreme Court of the Nor thern

T e r r l t o r y on 2 8 September, the appe l l an t hav tne o l eaded no t

g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e a g a l n s t h i m . On t h e t h i r d d a y of t h e

T r i a l , when it would seem t h a t t h e C r o m ' S case had been

near ly comule ted , the apus l lanT was rearrziqned and Dleaded

guilty t o vans l auqh te r . The Crown was Dreoared to accept

tha: 7 iea i n a a t l s f a c t i o n of t h e i n t i c r m e n t a a d t h e z p o e l l a n t

. .

-2 -

was du ly conv ic t ed of manslaughter by t h e j u r y .

The l e a r n e d tr ial judge sen tenced the appe l l an t t o

impr lsonment wi th hard labour for 8 yea r s and f ixed a non-

pa ro le pe r iod o f 4 y e a r s . The appe l l an t appea l s aga ins t

+he head senrence and the non-oarole per iod.

The a p o e l l a n t was born in Western Austral ia on

1 3 June 1 9 4 4 and a t t h e t i m e o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n was 3 9 vears

of age. H e w a s a fisherman by occupation and held a masters

t i c k e t f o r 3 0 0 t o n n e v e s s e l s . From l a t e 1 9 7 7 u n t i l the t ime

of h i s T e r r i t o r y . arrest he was a sk ippe r o f p rawn t r awle r s i n the

He was marr ied i n Western Austral ia i n 1 9 6 4 ,

s e p a r a t e d i n 1 9 7 9 and d ivo rced i n 1 9 8 1 . There were four

c h i l d r e n of t h e m a r r i a g e , two of whom d i e d s h o r t l y a f t e r

b i r t h . The o r h e r two ch i ld ren a r e w i th t he i r mo the r bu t

The a n t e c e d e n t r e p o r t r e c i t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t " h a s

regular contac t wl th them and s t i l l has a good r e l a t i o n s h i o

with his ex-wife The d e a t h o f and her cunren? husband".

Mr Smith took place i n the fol lowinq

c i rcumstances . On Anzac day l a s t yea r t he apne l l anu was

t h e s k i g p e r of t h e f i s n i n g v e s s e l Xanadu which exoerienced

mechanical problems as a r e s u l t of which the appel lant

r e tu rned t o Ba r t a lumba Bav for r eoa i - s . He a r r i v e d back

a t about 2 p.m.

Some of the mew o f L-he Xanadu including the

a ? p e l i a n t a n d h l s f l a n c e e L i z C i e s l i k , went to the Bartalumba

Bay clubhouse where a lcohol was a v a i l a b l e . One or the crew

members was Anuhony Tonnett vho had e a ? l i e r had disagreenenTs

- 3 -

wlth another on boa rd the c rew member I a n B r i r t a n . Mr Tonnett remained

Xanadu t o work on t h e f i s h i n g n e t s 2nd he d id

n o t a r r i v e d i d a r r i v e , a t t h e c l u b h o u s e u n t i l a b o u t 5 . 3 0 p.m. When he

t h e a p p e l l a n t was t h e r e p l a y i n g two-up and

d r i n k i n g	a l c o h o l ;	Miss	C ies l ik	and	Mr	B r i t t a n were	a l s o
There.

Late i n t h e a f t e r n o o n or e a r l y e v e n i n g Miss C i e s l i k ,

i r was s a i d , b e g a n t o c r i t i c i s e Mr Tonnet t ' s performance as

an employee d i sparaging and Mr B r i t t a n j o i n e d i n by making f u r t h e r

remarks . The r e s u l t was a f i g h t between Tonnett

and	B r i t t a n i n w h i c h t a b l e s , c h a i r s a n d g l a s s e s	were	knocked
over .

The a p p e l l a n t s e i z e d M r Tonnet t i n a headlock and

it was accepted by the Crown t h a t h e d i d so i n o rde r t o b reak

up t h e i n t e r v e n e d , a p o a r e n t l y b e l i e v i n g t h a t f i g h t . A t t h i s p o i n t M r Smith, who was a fisherman,

t h e a p D e l l a n t was

a s s i s t i n g B r i t t a n i n h i s f i g h t by securinE Tonnet t i n a

headlock. He s a i d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t " s n e on t o one" and

punched him i n t h e n o s e , p e r h a ? s more than once. It was a

s u f f i c i e n t l y s e v e r e	blow	t o f r a c t u r e t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s n a s a l
bone.

The appel lan t DOlnted out tha t he was the sk iope r

and tha t Tonnet t and Br i t tan were h i s deckhands . There

was e v i d e n c e t h a t M r Smith then apologised t o t h e a p o e l l a n t

for what he t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t g i v e e v i d e n c e b u t had done . Secause o f t he cou r se t he t r i a l t ook ,

it was s a i d bv h i s

counse l , i n t he counse o f h i s submiss ions as CO sentence ,

t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t h e a r t h e apolo~y.

The a p p e l l a n t ' s n o s e was b leed ing and he went t o

t h e washroom t o wash h i s f a c e . Ye r e t u r n e d and sat down

a t a t a b l e . By t h i s t i m e Mr Tonnett had l e f t t h e c l u b .

H e went r e t u r n e d t o down t o t h e Xanadu, c o l l e c t e d h i s b e l o n g i n g s and

a n a r e a nea r t h e c l u b where he sat on a s tack

of wooden p a l l e t s .

While he was t h e r e he was j o i n e d by another man

and then by M r B r l t t a n . M r Tonnett and M r B r i t t an appa ren t ly

s e t a b o u t t r y i n g t o r e s o l v e t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t had e x i s t e d

between fhem. While they were t a l k i n g Miss C i e s l i k

approached them and aga in s ta r ted to a rgue wi th Tonnet t .

. I

She t h e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e c l u b h o u s e a n d a t or about tha t t ime

M r Smith came f rom the c lubhouse .

M r Sml th jo ined M r T o n n e t t a n d a f t e r t h e y had been

speak ing fo r a t ime Miss C i e s l i k r e t u r n e d and cont inued to

a r y u e wi th Tonnet t . Mr Tonne t t no t l ced t he apoe l l an t coming

from t h e moored about 5 0 0 yards d i r e c t i o n o f t h e w h a r f . The Xanadu was s a i d t o be

f rom the c lubhouse . The a p p e l l a n t

jo ined Miss Cies l lk and then to ld M r Tonnett he vas sacked.

The ap?e l lan t and Miss C i e s l i k t h e n went in to the c lubhouse .

About 5 m i n u t e s l a t e r t h e a p o e l l a n t r e a o p e a r e d a t the door

of the' clubhouse. P!? Smi th a sked t he appe l l an t o come

over and exolain why he had sacked M r Tonnet t . The a p p e l l a n t

sa id That it was none of Mr Smi th ' s bus iness . 3y t h i s t i m e

Miss C i e s l i k had j o i n e d t h e g r o u p a n d s t a x e d t o a r g u e w i t h

Mr Smith . Zventua l ly Smi th sa id to the appel lan t "Shut he

b i t c h UD or i w i l l g e t h e r " . The a p o e l l a n t was then s een t o

be holding a Ruger 6 chamber evolver . It was a heavy

-5-

c a l i b r e weapon, a . 3 5 7 magnum. It be longed t o t he appe l l an t

and was u s e d f o r k i l l i n g s h a r k s c a u g h t i n -che n e t s . The

i n f e r e n c e i s c l e a r t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d , a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t

a t the c lubhouse , gone t o t h e Xanadu and secured the weapon.

The a p p e l l a n t poin-ced t h e r e v o l v e r a t M r Smith and Miss

C i e s l i k h e a r d t h e hammer o f t h e weapon pul led back. Mr

Smith lunged a t t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d , f r o m a d i s t a n c e of 6 f e e t

o r so , the appel lan t d l scharged the weapon. M r Smith f e l l

down. According t o M r T o n n e t t , t h e a p p e l l a n t s a i d t o him

"I a m not mucking around". In M r Tonnet t ' s words , the

apDel lan t and Miss C i e s l i k t h e n " b o l t e d " . An i n t e r v a l o f

some 2 T o n n e t t a n d B r i t t a n hour s had e l apsed f rom the t ime o f t he f igh t be tween

t o t h e s h o o t i n g of Smith.

Dr Hayden was on t h e s c e n e a s h o r t t i m e l a t e r b u t

concluded tha t NF Smith was dead. A o o s t mortem revea led

That he died of a b u l l e t wound t o t h e c h e s t .

The l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d E e s a l d t h a t h e m u s t assume,

from The Crown's acceptance of the plea of q u i l t y t o

mans laugh te r and the ju ry ' s consequen t ve rd ic t , t ha t t he

a p p e l l z n t h a d no intenTion t o .<ill M r S n i t h and t h a t he had

no i n t e n t i o n t o f i r e t h e r e v o l v c r . B h t , k?s Honour s a i d :

" . . . I must r ega rd v o w f o o l l s h a n d

dangerous conduct very seriously .

No doubt v o u ' r e e n t i t l e d t o

considerat ion and compassion.

Because of your in tempera te conduct ,

it i s now t o o l a t e TO extend a n y

cons idenat ion or comoassion t o Karl

Smith".

Counsel €or t h e a z n e l l a n t s u b m i t t e d t h a t h i s c l i e n t

d i d n o t know t h e r e v o l v e r was loaded. Aqain, because of

-6-

t h e c o u r s e t h e t r i a l t o o k , t h a t a s p e c t was n o t a b l e t o be

t e s t e d . The o b j e c t i v e fac t was t h a t t h e r e were t h r e e l i v e

s h e l l s i n t h e weapon b e f o r e t h e s h o o t i n g , one of which was

d i scha rged and , i n the words of counsel f o r t h e Crown, " the

.-,,

. I , -.

? $ , I -I:,,, . : ' .-: hammer was over tha t d i scharged . one a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e gun

, I

I ', 8 , -_ .

..

-L+$ ,y,

.L

r- -~'-

?

, .:'.

1

, . "

.

, _ _ I - .

*

;

:

>

m

,:.v-.:

-*.

;

:,

I. , - ~

d

I

.I-

I . . .

-

e - , -

L

I,

was found".

There was some e v l d e n c e b e f o r e t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l

. . , . - .. ' j u d g e o f t h e g e n e r a l good c h a r a c t e r and regard in which the

m. '.*;.,.-:.c,. . L-.5, --. L , . . .

aDoe l l an t was h e l d . A t t h e same t i m e , t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d

., I.' .I % ,* L. , : ~... I I 1 . , I I .

- . .L .:,.-\;.' . . ;... : . ; -.- .,

. , _.

- I ,..L ... r , r . ._. . :< . .. have 5 p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s , a l l i n Western Australia.

..L I I .

~ -.

. , I .

I - . < . . Three of t h o s e c o n v i c t i o n s ( t w o i n 1 9 6 3 and one i n 1 9 7 6 )

> I : ,I. , t,.

- ,

._I ,. ..._.. were f o r assaul t . On the second of those convic t ions ,

which involved two charges of assault w i t h i n t e n t t o r e s i s t

a r res t , t h e a p p e l l a n t was sentenced by t h e D i s t r i c t Court

t o 1 8 months hard labour . The sen tences were ordered to be

se rved concur ren t ly . The re was a conv ic t ion i n 1 9 6 3 of

unlawful ly removing prooerty and a conv ic t ion i n 1 9 6 1 of

unlawful use o f a moto r veh ic l e . A t t h a t t l m e t h e a p p e l l a n t

was 1 7 and was committed t o t h e c a r e of the Child Welfare

Deoartment u n t i l he was 1 8 .

The l e a r n e d Tr i a l j u d g e r e f e r r e d t o t h e s e c o n v i c t i o n s

b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s h l s r e m a r k s i n d i c a t e he took into account the

e v i d e n c e o f t h e a p o e l l a n t ' s good c h a r a c t e r , t h e f a c t t h a t h i s

employers spoke well of him and t h a t h e had assumed t h e

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f s k i p p e r o f a Drawn t r a w l e r .

The p r i n c i D l e s w n i c h a p p l y t o a p p e a l s t o t h l s c o u r t

ags ins t s en tence were enunc ia t ed in The Oueen v . T a i t ( 1 9 7 9 )

4 6 FLR 386 a t 388 i n a oassase which has s ince been f r e q u e n t l y

-l -

r e f e r r e d t o i n subseouen t dec i s ions o f t h i s Cour t . It

begins wi th a c i t a t ion f rom Crannsen v . The King (1936)

5 5 CLF 5 0 9 JTI p . 5 1 4 - 5 2 0 -

" ' . . . t h e a p 3 e a l 1 s from a d i s c r e t i o n a r y

a c t o f t h e c o u r t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e

s f n t e n c e . The j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v l s e

such a d l s c r e y i o n must be e x e r c i s e d i n

a c c o r d a n c e x l t h r e c o g n i z e d p r l n c i p l e s . It Ls no t enough tha t t he members of

t h e c o u r t \could themselves have lmposed

a l e s s or d i f f e r e n t s e n t e n c e , or t h a t

t hey t h ink t he s en tence ov - p r - seve re .

There must be some reason for regard ing

t h e d i s c r e I i o n c o n f l d e d t o r h e c o u r t o f

f i rs t i n s t a n c e as imoroper lv exerc lsed .

Thls may appea r f rom the c i r cums tances

whlch t h a t c o u r t h a s t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t .

They may inc lude some c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

which ought not TO h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e

d i s c r e t i o n , or may e x c l u d e o t h e r s which

ought TO have done so. The c o u r t may

have mistaken or been misled as t o t h e

f a c t s , o r a n e r r o r of law mav have been

made. E f f e c t may have been riven to

views or op in ions which a r e extreme or

misguided. 3 u t it i s no t necessary

t h a t some d e f i n i t e or s p e c i f i c e r r o r

should be assiEned. The n a t u r e of

the sentence i t s e l f , when cons idered i n

r e l a t i o n t o t h e o f f e n c e a n d t h e

c i rzumstances of t h e c a s e , may be such

as to a f f o r d convincing evidenzf t h a t i n

scme way t h e e x e r c l s e o f t h e d i s c r e t i o n

has been unsound . In sho r t , t he

p r i n c i o l e s w h i c h g u i d e c o u r t s of apoeal

i n dea l ing w i t h m a t t e r s r e s r i n g i n t h e

d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t oi f i r s t in s t ance

r e s t r a l n t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h i s c o u r t

t o c a s e s where the senIence a?pears

unreasonable , or h a s n o t b e e n f i x e d i n

the due and p rope r exe rc l se o f t he

c o u r t ' s a u t h o r l t y . ' I '

The Court conrinued:

"Ar.	a p c e l l a t e c o x t d o e s n o t i n t e r f e r e
with	the sentence imoosed merely because

it i s of t h e v i e w t h a t t h a t s e n t e x e i s

i n s u f f i c i e n 1 or e x c e s s i v e . I t

i n t e r f e r e s o n l y i f it be shown t h a t t h e

sentenclng judge was i n e r r o r I n a c t i n g

on a wrong p r i n c i o l e or i n misunderstanding

-a-

or i n v r o n g l y a s s e s s i n g some s a l i e n t

f e a t u r e o f t h e v i d e n c e . The e r r o r

may a p p e a r i n what t h e s e n t e n c i n g

judge said i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , or

t h e s e n t e n c e i t s e l f may be so excess ive or inadequate as t o

m a n i f e s t s u c h e r r o r ( s e e g e n e r a l l y ,

Skinner v . The King ( 1 9 1 3 ) 16 CLR

3 3 6 , a t pp. 3 3 9 - 3 4 0 ; R. v. Wi thers

( 1 9 2 5 ) ? S S.R . ( N . S . 3 . ) 3 6 2 , a t p . 3 9 4 ;

Whitrake? v . The King ( 1 9 2 8 j 41 CLR

2 3 0 , a t p . 2 4 9 ; Griffi-chs v . The Oueen

( 1 9 7 7 ) 1 3 7 CLR 2 9 3 . ) "

I n t h i s a p 2 e a l c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t s u b m i t t e d

t h a t t h e e r r o r of t h e l e a r n e d trial judge i s apparent by

r e a s o n o f t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e s e n t e n c e and the length of

t he non-pa ro le pe r iod , no t by r e a s o n o f e r r o r i n r e g a r d t o

a n y p r i n c i o l e o f l a w or l ack of cons idera t ion of impor tan t

a s p e c t s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e e v i d e n c e or submiss ions . In f ac t

it was i m p l i c i t i n M r HcDonald 's submissions that the learned

t r i a l j u d g e , i n h i s r e m a r k s o n s e n t e n c e , d i d r e f e r t o t h o s e

fea tures which could reasonably be said to ooe ra t e in f avour

o f t h e a p ? e l l a n t . His Honour f u r t h e r s t a t e d -

11 I	L
L a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h a t you were i n

a v e r y poor c o n d i t i o n t o d e f e n d

y o u r s e l f i n a f i s t f i g h t a n d you may

have f e l t t h a t you and your fiance

were a t some r i s k from your victim

and you produced a r e v o l v e r n o t

i n t e n d i n g t o f i r e i t , b u t s l n p l y t o

f r i g h t e n y o u r v i c t i m and t o s t o p t h e

apprehended assaulT- upon you or your

f l a n c e . "

We cons ide r t hese cons ide ra t ions ind ica t ed acceo tance

o f a f ac tua l background no t un favourab le to the apoe l l an t .

I t was con tended , accu ra t e ly enough , t ha t t he c r lne

of mans laughter embraces d i f fe ren t forms of i l l ega l conduct

wi th vary ing degrees of c u l p a b i l i t y . M r McDonald submitted

- 9 -

t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e i n v o l v e d p l a c e d t h e matter a t

t he lower end o f t he scale, t h e r e b e m g no proved i n t e n t i o n

t o k i l l or' m a i m , no l n t e n t l o n t o p u l l t h e t r i g g e r . i n t h i s

c o n r e x t he zrqued t5a-c The a p p e l l a n t armeZ i-.lmself w i th the

r e v o l v e r o n l y E S scu rce of p r o t e c t i o n t o h i n s e l f and h i s

f i a n c e e and a s a d e r e r r e n t a g a i n s t a n y r e c e t i t i o n o f Nr

S m i t h ' s e a r l f e r c o n d u c t . It was submitted t h a t h l s c o n d u c t

under such c i rcumstances should be c a t e g o r i s e d a s l e s s s e r i o u s

than those manslaughter reduced from murder cases invo lv ing excess ive se l f de fence or i nvo lv ing

by r eason of provocat ion -

s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e i n t e n t i o n t o l c i l l or cause gr ievous

b o d i l y harm i s e v i d e n t . M r McDonald a l s o r e f e r r e d t o p r e v i o u s

s e n t e n c e s o f t h i s c o u r t , s u b m i t t i n g i n so d o i n g t h a t t h e

sen tence i n ques t ion appea red d i soa ra t e . Whi l s t we understand

t h e basis s e n t e n c e s h a s b u t of such a s u b m i s s i o n , t h e r e f e r e n c e t o e a r l i e r

l i m i t e d v a l u e a s i n e v i t a b l y t h e f a c t u a l

backgrounds a re d ive r se .

Emphasis was a l s o p l a c e d on t h e € a c t t h a t The

a p p e l l a n t d i d no t know the weapon w2s loaded - a s l t u a t i o n

t h e Crown accepts and must accept in view of agreement a t

trial t o a c c e ? t a p l e a o f g u i l t y t o m a n s l a u s h t e r i n

s a r i s f ac t lon o f t he ind icTmen t fo r murde r .

B e t h a t a s i t may, t he ev idence ind ica t e s t he weaoon

was used i r was a weacon wlth in The cour se of f i s h i n g o o e r a t i o n s by t h e a p p e l l a n t .

whlch he was f a m i l i a r . t h e r e was

a b s o l u t e l y no e v i d e n c e t o sugges-c ma l func t ion . The a p p e l l a n t ' s

i g n o r a n c e t h a t it contained ammunltion could only be SupDorTed

on t h e b a s i s t n a t when he ob ta ined the r evo lve r from t h e

trawler he d i d n o t c h e c k t h i s familiar weapon. It was h i s

d e c i s i o n t o arm h imse l f and p l ace the r evo lve r down t h e f r o n t

of h i s s h o r t s . It was h i s e l e c t i o n t o c a r r y it and oroduce

it under c i rcumstances in which there was n e i t h e r n e c e s s i t y

n o r r a t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . A t t h e time he drew it , cocked

it and ?ointed i t , n e l t h e r h e n o r h l s f i a n c e e c o u l d be s a i d

t o be unde r any s e r ious t h rea t . It i s unde r s t andab le t ha t

t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l judge ca tegor i sed such conduct as " fool i sh" .

and s ta ted v iew tha t no o ther - v iew he regarded it as "h ighly dangerous l l . We t a k e t h e

, , . ., .. + . . , _.

was t e n a b l e a n d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f

t h i s l a r g e c a l i b r e firearm was a f a c t o r s u f f i c i e n t i n i t s e l f

t o p l a c e dangers of such conduct a re t h e c r i m e i n a s e r i o u s c a t e g o r y . The inhe ren t

so obvious as t o r e q u i r e no

e l abora t ion and the l ea rned t r i a l judge , w i th h i s expe r i ence

i n t h e N o r t h e r n T e r r i t o r y , would be wel l aware tha t a sentence

which may grovide some d e t e r r e n t was r equ i r ed . Th i s was i n

fac t emphas ised by t h e Crown P r o s e c u t o r i n h i s b r i e f

submiss ions before sen tence .

The maxlmum sen tence fo r mans laugh te r i n the Nor the rn

T e r r i t o r y i s l i f e imprisonment. The d i s c r e t i o n as to s en tence

i s o t h e r w i s e u n r e s t r i c t e d by s t a t u t e and includes condi t ional

r e l e a s e p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C r i m i n a l Law

(Cond i t iona l Re lease o f Of fende r s ) Ac t . However, i n t h e

p re sen t ca se a sentence of imprisonment and a s u b s t a n t i a l

sentence was necessary. Immediate or e a r l v c o n d i t i o n a l

r e l e a s e or a short sentence of imprisonmen1 would have

groduced a sentence "so l e n i e n t t h a t it did not accord wi th

the gene ra l mora l s ense o f t he community and so l e n i e n t t h a t

it wzs u n l i k e l y t o be a s u f f i c i e n t d e t e r r e n t t o o t h e r s " .

R. v . P r i n d a b l e ( 1 9 7 9 ) 2 3 ALR 6 6 5 a t 6 6 9 ; s e e a l s o Channon

v . R. ( 1 9 7 8 ) 2 0 ALR 1 a t 5 .

I n s h o r t , a c c e p t i n g as we d o t h a t t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f

t h e p u b l l c was a mat te r of pr imary concern to the learned

tr ial judee i n t h i s t ype o f case , t he impos ik ion o f t he

. I

sentence of 8 years imprisonment , w h i l s t s u b s t a n t i a l , c o u l d

n o t be te rmed mani fes t ly excess ive .

I t was a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d g e

,. I " L . I

e r r e d i n f i x i n g a pe r iod o f 4 y e a r s b e f o r e t h e a p p e l l a n t

w i l l be e n t i t l e d t o p a r o l e . S u b - s e c t i o n 4 ( 1 ) o f t he Pa ro le

of P r i s o n e r s ' A c t p r o v i d e s t h a t a c o u r t s h a l l s p e c i f y a l e s s e r

te rm dur ing which an of fender so sentenced is n o t t o be

e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e r e l e k s e . It i s well e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t

t h e e x e r c i s e o f s u c h a d i s c r e t i o n may be examined i n the

c o u r s e o f a p p e a l a g a i n s t s e n t e n c e . C l e a r l y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

c o n s i d e r s it is i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e community t h a t

o f f ende r s shou ld as a g e n e r a l r u l e be r e l e a s e d and qiven

t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of r e h a b i l l t a t l o n b e f o r e e x ; o w n t i o n of t h e

sen tence . In The p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e i s no r eason t o douh t

t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t i s u n s u i t a b l e f o r p a r o l e or t h a t he w i l l

n o t r e s D o n d t h i s i s no t t o ' t h e o p o r c u n i t i e s g r a n t e d bv p a r o l e . But

a case where the minimum non-parole per iod f ixed

i s s u c h t h a t it too c lose ly approx imares the da t e o f r e l ease

unde r emis s ion en t i t l emen t . I n such a czse L-he value of

p a r o l e r e l e a s e may be j eopa rd i sed . The ques t ion aga in is

whether the non-paro le Der iod f ixed i s wi th in The limlts of

a r e a s o n a b l e e x e r c i s e o f j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n . The o r m c i p l e s

involved were examined by t h i s c o u r t i n Anderson v. R . ( 1 9 7 8 )

1 9 ALR 2 1 2 , a case where t h e t r i a l judge had imposed a non-

pa ro le pe r iod o f 3 years be ing one ha l f o f the sen tence .

~.

The appea l was l i m i t e d t o t h e l e n g t h o f t h e n o n - p a r o l e p e r i o d .

Smlthers J. a t 2 1 4 e t seq examined the matter i n d e t a i l a n d

r e f e r r e d t o t h e judgment of the Ful l Cour t in R. v. Eckhardt

( 1 9 7 1 ) 1 SASR 347 a t 351-2 where t h a t c o u r t r e f e r r e d t o t h e

t a s k o f f o r m u l a t i n g a "duly proport ioned and properly balanced

s e n t e n c e t h a t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o m e e t a l l the c i rcumstances of

>:.L,: . . . s e . ! - I . -,:. -, . ,?. - _. . \. ,.,:.,* '. , :_ .~ -1.. I - . ,._ .; . ~ ~

. 1

_I . - . t h e case". The e lement o f de te r rence i s n o t l o s t i n t h i s

e x e r c i s e . As Smithers J . said a t p.221-

. .,.I __ ,., ,

\ .,, ,v. 5- ' ' > - "It i s c l e a r t h a t t h e e l e m e n t o f d e t e r r e n c e

..P-. . _1

must be balanced against the requirements

o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , t h a t s c o u e s h o u l d be

L .. . p r o v i d e d f o r t h e e f f e c t i v e o p e r a t i o n o f

the pa ro le sys t em. A t t h e same time

regard should be had t o t h e p u n i t i v e

a s p e c t of t ha t sys t em and i t s p o t e n t i a l

t o r e s u l t l n a c t u a l i m p r i s o n m e n t a t a

time remote from the commission of the

c r ime and ex tend ing subs t an t i a l lv bevond

t h e t e r m of the main sen tence ."

The l ea rned t r ia l judge d i d n o t g ive r easons f ix ing

a non-parole per iod of 4 p e a r s ; b u t i t i s evident f rom his

o b s e r v a t i o n s as t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p a s t h i s t o r y t h a t he

considered he should be g ran ted the oppor tun i ty o f

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n b e f o r e h i s r e l e a s e d a t e . The oer iod f ixed

is s u c h cannot be said with a s t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s . I t

a s e n t m c e o f t h i s d u r a t i o n t h a t an order

which n e c e s s i t a t e s a p r i sone r s e rv ing one ha l f o f t he sen tence

impose2 by t h e c o u r t i s , f o r t h a t r e a s o n a l o n e , e x c e s s i v e .

Ne a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d t h a t t h e l e a r n e d trial j u d g e e r r e d i n

imposins a sentence of 8 years impr isonment wi th hard labour ;

?.or i s e r ro r demons t r a t ed in h i s de t e rmina t ion o f t he non-

p a r o l e p e r i o d . I n f a c t we r ega rd t he s en tence as being

ba lanced and duly propor t ioned , paying regard both to the

n a t u r e a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e o f f e n c e a n d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

background and antecedents.

The appea l : J i l l be dismissed.

I c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s and t h e

twelve preceding pages a re a

X. t r u e c o p y of t h e Reasons f o r

JudEment h e r e i n of the Court

Associate

Dated: 1 3 A p r i l 1 9 8 4