Channon v The Queen

CATCHWORDS

Criminal law - Appeal on sentence - Persons jointly

charged - Parity of sentences

- Non-parole period,

slgnlflcance of length of - Crown allegatlons -

Agreement between prosecutor

and defendant as to facts

Duty to provide analysis

of evldence relating to each

offender -	Separate representatlon of persons jointly
charged

BRIAN DENNIS LOVELOCK v. THE QUEEN

No. F.C.

of 1977

Coram :	Brennan, Deane, McGregor JJ.
Canberra

22nd March,

1978

5 .

7 .

c e r l l f y t h a t

t h l s

and t h e flf9/Ng

p r e c e d i n g pages

are a t r u e copy

or t h e

Reasons

f o r Judgmen t

he re ln

hls

Honour Mr. J u s t l c e &?g~iu&u,

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

)	No. P.C. 26 of 1977

DISTRICT REGISTRY

1 1

GENERAL DIVISION

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUF’EME COURT

OF ‘THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BEThEEN:

BRIAN DENNIS LOVELOCK

Appel lan t

AND	THE QUEEN
-

Respondent

CORAM :

Brennan, Deane and

McGregor JJ.

REASONS

FOR

JUDGMENT

DEANE J:

The re levant facts a r e set o u t i n the

judgment of

Brennan J., which I have

had

the

advantage

of reading .

I ag ree ,

for t h e reasons which he

gives , with

Brennan

J’s conclus ion

t h a t t h e

sentence

two

years impr isonment which the l earned

Judge

a t first

ins t ance imposed i n

respect

o f t he o f f ence

b r e a k i n g , e n t e r i n g a n d s t e a l i n g t o w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d

p l e a d e d g u i l t y

was,

i n a l l t h e

circumstances,

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

by error j u s t l f i e d i n i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h

nor i nappropr i a t e and t ha t t h l s Cour t wou ld

no t

it.

-2-

have

found the

ques

ion

whether

the

earned

Judge

was

i n e r r o r i n f i x i n g

non-parole per iod of

one year

e x t r e m e l y

d i f f l c u l t

o n e .

C l e a r l y ,

t h e r e

i s

s e l f - e v i d e n t

element

harshness in the non-paro le per iod of twelve months

o r l ack o f p ropor t ion be tween t ha t and t he s en tence o f

two

yea r s .

Th i s

i s

p a r t l c u l a r l y

t h e

case when

it i s a p p r e c i a t e d

t h a t , af ter f i x i n g t h e n o n - p a r o l e p e r l o d , h i s

imposing

the

sentence

two

yea r s

and be fo re

Honour

had

d i r e c t e d t h a t

two

sentences o f

s1x

months

mposed

f o r sepa ra t e ,

t hough a s soc ia t ed ,

o f fences

rved

concurren t ly

the

two

yea r

s en tence .

The

range

and

quant i ty

the

goods

s to len

and

the

wantonness

t h e s e t t i n g a l i g h t

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

o f

t he

o f f ences .

The

f ac t

t h a t It

was

t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

car

which was h o u s e t h a t t h e s t o l e n g o o d s

used

f o r

t r a n s p o r t a n d t h a t

was

t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

were	t aken unde r l ines h i s complc t e

involvement

thelr

commisslon.

t h e

o t h e r

h a n d ,

t h e

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

o f f e n c e s p r o v i d e d ,

i n

v iew,

rounds

f l x lng

s h o r t e r

non-

parole

per

iod than would otherwise have been warranted.

I n s e n t e n c i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ,

t h e l e a r n e d

tr ial

Judge

commented

had "a bad record" which he had put behind

him.

I t i s t r u e

t h a t

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

h a d

b e e n

c o n v i c t e d

s e r l o u s

of fences

d i shones ty .

Those

convlc t ions

were

however

i n 1 9 6 6

and 1967 r e s p e c t i v e l y a n d ,

when

t h e a p p e l l a n t

was

aged

1 3 years and

1 4 y e a r s

i n

1970, when,

a t the

age

o f

1 6

yea r s ,

was

convic ted and f ined

$30.00

f o r s t e a l i n g p e t r o l w h i c h

was

seemingly of a va lue

o f

two

d o l l a r s .

Since

t h e n

h i s

o n l y

-3-

conv ic t ions were

( i n 1970)

for

" indecent

words"

($10.00

f i n e )

and

( i n 1 9 7 2 )

f o r d r i v i n g

v e h i c l e w i t h o u t

l i cence and g lv ing

f a l s e name and address, presumably when

unab le t o p roduce

l i c e n c e

( t o t a l

p e n a l t i e s

$80.00).

When

r e a d

i n

t h e

c o n t e x t

t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s b a c k g r o u n d i n t h e

Causeway

in Canber ra and

wi th

a l l r e s p e c t

t o t h o s e who

may

see

t h e matter

d i f f e r e n t l y ,

I	s i m p l y c a n n o t r e g a r d t h a t r e c o r d ,	f o r	r e l e v a n t p u r p o s e s ,	as
a	bad one.

The Welfare

Report

which

the

Crown

p l a c e d b e f o r e t h e

l ea rned

t r ia l

J u d g e l n d l c a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ,

i n h i s

child-

hood, suf fe red neglec t and hardshlp

consequence of h i s

f a the r ' s

d runkenness .

The

a p p e l l a n t ' s

e d u c a t l o n

w a s

t e rminc ted

a t

the p remature age o f

1 4 when

was

granted exemption

from

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

t h e p u r p o s e

(to u s e t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

w o r d s

which are whi le Dad was i n j a i l " .

quo ted In t he Wel fa re Repor t ) o f " look lng a f t e r

Mum,

The ch i ldhood

schoolboy

fences

the ages of

13 and

1 4

t o

which reference has been

made

were,

i n t h e overcome this harsh

c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

s c a r c e l y

s u r p r i s i n g .

The

appe l l an t

had

and

mauspicious

background.

H e

had

m a r r i e d a n d e s t a b l i s h e d h i m s e l f , h i s

wife

and

two

c h i l d r e n i n

well

kep t and adequa te ly fu rn i shed

home

l n t h e C a n b e r r a

suburb of

Narrabundah.

The

p r e s e n t

o f f e n c e s

a s i d e ,

t h e

a p p e l l a n t ' s	home	a n d f a m i l y l i f e	were	bo th r e spec tab le and
s t a b l e .

The

c i r cums tances su r round ing t he appe l l an t ' s

i nvo lve -

ment

i n t h e

commiss ion of

the

ree

fences

appeared

rom the

material

be fo re

t he

l ea rned

Judge

o f

f i r s t

i n s t a n c e .

The

a p p e l l a n t

r a r e l y

d r i n k s .

the

a f t e rnoon

t he

day

which

-4-

t h e o f f e n c e s

were

committed,

t h e a p p e l l a n t w e n t

t o

h o t e l w i t h

h i s w i f e ' s b r o t h e r ( F a u l l )

who

h a d r e c e n t l y r e t u r n e d

t o

C a n b e r r a

f r o m i n t e r - S t a t e

a n d

who

was,

it would

seem,

a d d i c t e d

t o

a l c o h o l .

T h e r e

t h e y

met

Richardson

who

was

t h e i n s t i g a t o r

of t h e i r a c c o r d i n g

p l a n n e d

a n d

d e l i b e r a t e

c r i m l n a l

a c t i v i t l e s .

R i c h a r d s o n ,

t o

h l s

own

s t a t e m e n t s ,

was

a w a r e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t

" r a r e l y

d r i n k s "

a n d

"set appel lant

o u t t o g e t " t h e a p p e l l a n t " d r u n k " t o

see

what

would

happen.

The

was

p r o b a b l y

affected

a l c o h o l

when

R lcha rdson p ropounded ,

and

t he

appe l l an t

became

a p a r t y R icha rdson

to ,

t h e p l a n

b r e a k i n g i n t o p r e m i s e s

a t which

had

p rev ious ly

worked .

I t

common

g r o u n d

t h a t ,

some	e l v s n d a y s a f t e r t h e o f f e n c e h a d b e e n c o m m i t t e d a n d a f t e r

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

t h e

a p p e l l a n t ,

h i s

own

a c c o r d , a t t e n d e d

a t p o l i c e h e a d q u a r t e r

i n C a n b e r r d a n d

made

a n d f r a n k s t a t e m e n t o f h i s i n v o l v e -

ment i n

t h e

o f f e n c e s .

T h e s e

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

n o t

m i n i m i z e

the

compleke

involvement

t h e a p p e l l a n t i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f

t h e o f f e n c e s

t o

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

t h o s e

o f f e n c e s .

They

are,

h o w e v e r ,

r e l e v a n t

when

one

comes

t o

assess

t h e i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h p o s s i b l e r e h a b l l i t a t i o n s h o u l d p l a y

i n t h e f i x i n g o f t h e n o n - p a r o l e p e r i o d .

I n

f a r

t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n o n - p a r o l e p e r l o d

was

c o n c e r n e d ,

t h e r e

was

v e r y c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e c o n -

s i d e r a t l o n s r e l e v a n t

t o

t h e

case

o f t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h o s e

r e l e v a n t

t o

t h e

case

o f

t h e

a p p e l l a n t ' s

c o - a c c u s e d ,

F a u l l .

F a u l l h a d b u t r e c e n t l y r e t u r n e d t o C a n b e r r a f r o m Q u e e n s l a n d .

H e	h a d a b s c o n d e d t o Q u e e n s l a n d i n c o n t i n u i n g b r e a c h o f t h e

c o n d i t i o n s o f

good behaviour bond which he had en tered

- 5-

c o n d i t i o n

h l s a t n i g h t .

release

upon

conv ic t ion o f t he o f f ence o f

m a l i c i o u s

i n j u r y

H i s c r i m i n a l

r e c o r d

w a s ,

i n

t r u t h ,

a bad

one.

The

c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

t h e d e s t r u c t i v e e f f e c t

w h i c h

imprisonment

would be l

ikely to

have

upon

one

who had

overcome

formidable hurd les

t o

make

good

e s t a b l i s h m g a

s e c u r e

family and

home

w h i c h a p p l l e d i n t h e

case

t h e a p p e l l a n t

was

a b s e n t

i n

t h e

case o f

F a u l l .

F a u l l ' s

o v e r a l l

i n v o l v e m e n t

i n

t h e o f f e n c e s

was,

i n n e w o f t h e f a c t t h a t

it was

h e who

set

f i re

t o

t h e

t r u c k ,

n o

less than tha t of t h e

a p p e l l a n t .

H e

was	c o n v i c t e d o f i d e n t i c a l o f f e n c e s a n d r e c e i v e d I d e n t i c a l

sentences,

namely,

a sen tence of two yea r s

impr i sonmen t

fo r

t h e o f f e n c e

b reak lng , en t e r ing and s t ea l ing and concur ren t

sen tences

o f

s i x months

f o r

t h e

two associated offences.

These

t h r e e c o n c u r r e n t s e n t e n c e s

were

however

cumulative

upon

sen tence o f

s ix

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

i n j u r y

a t n ight whlch

was

imposed

t h e l e a r n e d

tr ial Judge

upon

F a u l l b e i n g c a l l e d u p f o r s e n t e n c e

upon breach of the

cond i t ions

h i s

bond . wanton

H i s

o f f ence

ma l i c ious

i n -~ury

a t

n ight had c i rcumstances ,

Involved

des t ruc t ion

p roper ty .

a l l t h e

s i g n i f i c a n t l y s h o r t e r n o n - p a r o l e p e r i o d

was

warranted

t h e

case

o f t h e a p p e l l a n t

t o t h a t w h i c h

w a s

w a r r a n t e d i n t h e

case

P a u l 1 i n r e s p e c t o f t h e s e n t e n c e s f o r t h e

three

ident ica l o f fences o f which they had been convlc ted .

No twi ths t and ing t h i s ,

t he non-pa ro le

iod

xed

t he

case

t h e a p p e l l a n t I n r e s p e c t

t h e s e n t e n c e s f o r t h e t h r e e

offences of

which he

was

g u i l t y was

t h e same

the non-parole

period

f i x e d i n t h e

case

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

f o r b o t h t h o s e t h r e e o f f e n c e s a n d

for

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

o f f ence

m a l i c i o u s i n j u r y a t n i g h t .

-6-

I n t h e c o n t e x t

t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,

have

u l t i m a t e l y

come

t o a g r e e ,

fo r

t h e

r e a s o n s

w h l c h h e

g i v e s ,

w l t h

t h e c o n c l u s i o n

Brennan

J . ,

t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d

upon

t h e a p p e l l a n t

was,

I n

f a r

t h e n o n - p a r o l e p e r l o d f i x e d

i s

c o n c e r n e d , a f f e c t e d

error

such

k i n d

t o w a r r a n t

i n t e r v e n t i o n .

a g r e e

w i t h

t h e

o r d e r

p r o p o s e d

Brennan

-l

AUS'~RAI,I4N CAPIT:\L	TERRITORY	)	No.	F.C.	26	o i	1 9 7 7
1

DISTRICT REGISTRY	__-	1
l

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL from t h c Supreme Cour t o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p l t a l T e r r l t o r y

BETNEEN:

B R I A N

IIENNIS

LOVI'LOCK

A p p c l l s n t

AND:

THE

QIJEEN

Respondent

COILIM:

Brennan,

Dcane,

NcGregor

JJ.

the

Twenty-second

day

March

1 9 7 8

REASOUS TOR JUDGPIEKT

McGREGOR .J:

t h e

1 2 t h

Decembcr

1 9 7 7 BI<T.IK

DEKKTS

LOVEI.OCI;

( a p p e l l a n t )

p l e a d e d Crimcs Act

g u i l t y 1 9 0 0 o f Nex South Ic'ales i n I t s

t o

t h r e c

c h a r g e s

two

brou,qht

p u r s u a n t

t o

a p p l l c a t i o n

t o

t h e

A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l

r e r r i t o q - s.l12(a)

and

S . 1 8 7

and

one

p u r s u a n t

t o

S. 2 4 7 .

The

f i r s t

involved a

c o n s l d e r a b l c

q u a n t i t y

g o o d s

o f

various

k i n d s ,

t h e

s e c o n d

a n d t h i r d 5 June 1 9 7 7 .

m o t o r

t r u c k .

All

o f f c n c e s

~ \ c r e

c o m m i t t c > d

t h e 13th Dcccmber 1 9 7 7 t h e

a p p e l l a n t

\ \ a s

conv ic t ed

and

s en tenced

f o l l o w s

...

N a t u r e

S e c t i o n

o f

Pena l ty

Chargc

p r o p c r t y

S. 112a

Washlng

Maclnnes

Hreak,

e n t e r

'Two

y e a r s

Llquor

e t c .

s t e a l

imprisonment,

n o n - p a r o l e

p e r i o d

o n c

y c a r

b lo tor

S .187

t ruck

S t e a l

S ix months

S . 2 4 7

Motor

t ruck

M a l i c i o u s l y

S ix months

i n ] u rc

The

s e n t e c c e s

w e r e

t o

s e r v e d

c o n c u r r e n t l y .

Thc

a p p e l l a n t

p l aycd

l e a d l n g

p a r t

i n

t h e

c o m m l s s i o n

o i t h e s e

o f f e n c e s

t h o u g h

t h e

i d e a

was

c o n c e l v e d ,

i t

seems,

f e l low

accused

R icha rdson .

o u t l i n e o i t h c f ac t s

i s s e t

out

the

Judgment

l3 rcnnan

J .

a n d n e e d s n o t

b e r c s t a t e d .

The

a p p e l l a n t

was

c h a r g e d w i t h

t w o o t h e r

mcn,

R i c h a r d s o n

a n d

F a u l l ,

i n

r e s p c c t

o f

t h e

f i r s t

t h r e e

c h a r g c s ;

b u t

w i t h

F a u l l

o n l y

i n

r c s p c c t

t h e

t h l r d .

I t

c l e a r

t h a t

t h e crimes were

p l anned

and

audac ious ly

ca r r i ed

ou t .

The

a c c u s e d

e v e n

t h e

s e c o n d

n i g h t

w e r e

a p p a r c n t l y

i n t e n t

r e t a i n i n g

o r

r e a l l s l n g

t h e

p r o p e r t y .

The

m a l l c i o u s

i n j u r y

cha rgc

demons t r a t ed

w a n t o n d i s r e g a r d

[or

t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e

owners

and

secms

t o

h a v e

b e e n

s i n g u l a r l y

u n n e c e s s a r y

e x e r c i s e .

I t was

n o t

e x c u s a b l e

e v e n

some

n o t i o n

o i expediency

reason

o f

s i t u a t j o n

i n

w h i c h

t h e

t h i e v c s

i o u n d

t h e m s c l v c s .

. . .

There

was

e v l d e n c e

t h a t

a l l t h r c e

h a d

l l q u o r

b e f o r e

c m b a r k i n g

o n

t h c consumption

c n t e r p r i s e .

A p a r t

a l t o g e t h c r

f r o m

t h e

[ a c t

t h a t

t h e i n t en t

l q u o r p r o v i d e s

de fencc

i n l aw

(where

i s

no t

impa i r cd )

I t i s n o t

c a s i l y

a c c e p t e d t h a t

t h e t h i e v c s w c r c m a t e r l a l l y a f f e c t e d

l i q u o r

a t

t h e

r e l e v a n t

t i m e ;

a n d

1s n o t e d

t h a t

t h e y

werc

mindcd

, g o o d s ,

cven

thc

following

n i g h t ,

t o

c o n s i d e r

r e t u r n i n g

t h e

whcn

one

might

have

hoped

tha t

t h e

e f f e c t o f

any

l l q u o r had

worn

oEf.

T h i s

a p p e a l

i s b rough t

t o t h c i n s u p p o r t

s e v e r i t y

t h e

sentence

Imposed.

Ihe

grounds

argued

may

b e

shor t ly

summar i sed

(l)

The learned

t r ia l

Judge falled

properly

e x e r c i s e

h i s

d i s c r c t l o n

one

o r

two

grounds

v i z

l 'he

sen tence

( i )

p r o c e c d e d

unsound

basis ;

o r

( i i )

was

un reasonab le

a s

a n

e x e r c i s e

o f d i s c r c t i o n .

(2)

H a v l n g

r e g a r d

t o

t h e

s c n t c n c e

g i v c n

t o

( t h e

i e l l o v accused)

F a u l l ,

p r e v i o u s

r e c o r d s

o f

accused

and

t h e i r

hon~c c i r c u m s t a n c e ,

a p p e l l a n t

s h o u l d

h a v e

r e c e i v e d

l e s s e r

s e n t e n c e ;

His

H o n o u r ' s

i a i l u r e

t o do

s o

showed

ive

any

cons lde ra t ion

o r ,

a t a n y r a t e , m a t t e r s

n o t

" d u e w e l g h t "

t o

c e r t a i n

e . g .

t h e

r c c o r d

o f

a p p e l l a n t

w h i c h

was

means

a s

b a d

t h a t

o f

F a u l l .

For my

p a r t I

do n o t

a c c e p t

t h c

a r g u m e n t

i n

s u p p o r t

thls second g r o u n d I n s o f a r a s it

i s based

q u e s t i o n

o f

c o m p a r i s o n

t h e

a c c u s e d

F a u l l

a n d

t h e

a p p e l l a n t .

G e n e r a l l y

s p e a k i n g

J o e s

a p p e a r

t h a t

p a r i t y o r

s c n t e n c e s

g l v c n

t o

C O - a c c u s c d

f o r

t h e

same

o f f e n c e

1s d e s l r a b l e .

But

t h l s m u s t

y i e l d

t o

l n d l v l d u a l

f a c t o r s .

r e l e v a n t

s t a t e m e n t

o f

C o u r t ' s

d u t y

i s

s t a t e d 111 -	K	v.	B a l l	( 1 9 5 2 )	35	C . A . R .	p .164	a t 1 6 6 v 1 z	-
-

Our

l a w d o e s

n o t ,

t h e r e f o r c ,

f i x

t h e

s e n t e n c e

f o r a

p a r t i c u l a r

c r i m e ,

b u t f i x e s

maximum

s e n t e n c e

a n d

l e a v e s

i t

t o

t h e

C o u r t

t o

c l c c i d c

what

i s ,

w i t h i n

t h a t

maximum,

t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e

s c n t e n c e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f

f o r

e a c h c r i m ~ n a l

i n	t h e p a r t l c u l a r

c a c h

c a s e .

Not

o n l y

i n

r e g a r d

t o

e a c h

c r i m e ,

b u t

i n C o u r t

r e g a r d

t o r l g h t

e a c h

c r i m i n a l ,

t h c

h a s

t h e

ancl

t h e d u t y t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t o

b e

l e n i e n t

o r

s e v c r e .

I t i s f o r

t h e s e

r e a s o n s ,

a n d

w i t h

t h e s e

p u r p o s e s

i n v l c h - ,

t h a t

bc ro re

p a s s ~ n g s e n t c n c e

t h e

C o u r t

h e a r s

e v i d e n c c

t h e

a n t e c c d e n t s

a n d

c h a r a c t e r

o r

e v e r y c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n .

I t

C o l l o w s

t h a t

when

t w o

p c r s o n s

a r e

c o n v i c t c d

t o g c t h e r

o l a

c r m c o r

ser lcs

o f

c r lmes

i n

lch

t hey

have

b c c n

a c t i n g

i n

c o n c e r t ,

may

r i g h t ,

a n d

v e r y

o r t e n

i s r i g h t ,

t o

d i s c r i m l n a t c

b e t l t e e n

t h e

t1io

and t o

b e

l e n i c n t

t o

t h e

o n e

a n d

n o t

t o

t h e

. . .

-	. .	--	-	..-. -
5

o t h e r .

The

background ,

an t ecedcn t s

a n d c h a r a c t c r

o f

t h e

o n e

a n d h i s

whole

b e a r i n g

i n

C o u r t

may

i n d i c a t e

chance

o f re lorm whereas I t may

l e n i e n c y

i s

e x t e n d e d ,

scem t h a t

o n l y

h a r s h

l e s s o n

i s

l i k e l y t o make

t h e

o t h e r

s t o p

i n

h l s

c r i m i n a l

c a r c e r .

The

a r g u m e n t

t h a t

s e v c r e

s c n t c n c e

o n e p r l s o n e r

must

u n ~ u s t

bccause

h l s

f e l l o w p r l s o n c r ,

who

was

c o n v i c t e d

o f

t h e

same

c r i m e ,

r e c e i v e d

l i g h t

s e n t e n c e

o r

n o n e a t

a l l ,

has

n e i t h e r

v a l i d i t y n o r

f o r c e .

The

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

i n

t r c a t m e n t

i s j u s t l f l e d

i f

t h e

C o u r t ,

I n

c o n s i d e r i n g

t h e

p u b l i c

i n t e r e s t ,

h a s

r e g a r d

t o

t h e

d i f f e r e n c c s

t h e

c h a r a c t c r s

a n d

a n t e c e d e n t s

o f

t h e

two

c o n v l c t c d

men

a n d d l s c r j m i n a t e s

b e t w e e n

t h e m b e c a u s e

o f

t h o s e

d i f f c r e n c c s .

The

l a s t

s e n t e n c e

m i g h t

t h o u g h t

t o

b e

a p p o s i t e ;

t hough

one

f ee l s

The i r r e s t r i c t

I Ionour s t h e d l f f c r e n c e s

d ld

n o t

wish

c a t e g o r i c a l l y

t o

w h i c h

Cour t may

have

regard

t o -

1 1

. . .

c h a r a c t c r s a n d a n t e c e d e n t s ” .

That

s e n t e n c e

must

b c

p e r s o n a l l y

a p p r o p r i a t e

t o

c o n v i c t e d

man

1 s

cmphas lsed In

R ~udgmen t

v. Bcaumont

( 1 9 5 5 )

S.A.S.R.

p . 1 1 0

a t 1 1 5 whcre

t he

o f

t h e

C o u r t

quotes

f rom

~ u d g m e n t o f

Lord

Alvers tone

L . C . J . ,

i n

d e l i v e r i n g

t h e

j u d g m e n t

o i t h e

C o u r t

o f

Criminal

Appeal

i n -

R v.

S t u t t e r ( 1 9 1 0 )

Cr. App. R .

6 4 where he

s a l d -

“We

do n o t

d e a l

merc

comparjson

i n

a s c e r t a l n i n n u h e t h e r

sentence

i s

e x c e s s i v e ,

u n l e s s

t h c

c i r c u m s t a n c c s

a re such as t o make

t h e

s e n t e n c e

u n f a i r

i n

i t s e l f .

I n

v i c t i

o i h i s

p r e v i o u s

c a r e e r ,

t h e

C o u r t

was

~ u s t i f l c d i n i n i l i c t i n g

v e r y

s e v e r e

1 1

s e n t e n c e

...

I n t h a t c a s e , t h e p a s s a g e f r o m -	R v . -	Ball	( s u p r a )	v:as
c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l .

T h a t

t h e

n a t u r e

o f

t h e

s e n t c n c c

s h o u l d

p e r s o n a l

t o

t h e

a c c u s e d

a n d

h i s

c i r c u m s t a n c e

e v e n

i f

d i s p a r i t y f o l l o w s

b r o u g h t o u t

i n -

R v.

Bavdaz (1967)

N.S.1V.R.

V o l . 1

p . 3

a t 5

w h c r e

t h e i r

H o n o u r s

s a i d

I t

i s t r u e

t h a t

m a r k e d d l s p a r i t y

O K

s e n t e n c e s

i s c o m p l i c i t y

u n d e s i r a b l e

w h e r e

t h e

mcn

s e n t c n c e d

f o r

t h e

same

o f f e n c e

arc

a l l

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

i n

t h e

same

s i t u a t i o n ,

b u t

t h i s

g e n e r a l

r u l c

must

g i v e way

t o

t h c a p p r o p r i a t e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

i n

e a c h

i n d i v i d u a l

c a s e .

Here

t h c two

men

w r e n o t s u b s t a n t l a l l y

i n

t h e

same s i t u a t i o n .

Any

o n c

o f

t h e

seven

reasons

h i s

Honour

gavc

would

have

j u s t i r i e d morc

l en i ency

t o

Gac

ich

and

t h e s e v e n , j u s t i f y much

t a k e n

t o g e t h e r ,

c e r t a i n l y

more l en i ency .

I n t h i s a d h e r i n g t o u n i f o r r n j t y w h e r c o t h e r w i s e i n a p p r o p r i a t e

c a s e

a l s o

t h e

q u e s t i o n

O K

t h e u n d e s i r a b i l i t y

o f

was

r e K e r r e d t o a t p .

t h u s

Though

u n i a i r d i s c r j m m a t l o n b e t w e e n

p r i s o n c r s

h a s p e r s o n s

t o

a v o i d e d ,

t h c r c

i s

r u l e

t h a t

j o i n t l y

g u i l t y

o i

... 7

t h e

samc

o f f e n c c

s h o u l d

a l l

r e c e i v e

t h c

same

s c n t e n c e .

I €

it werc p a t e n t l y u n j u s t

o the rwlse

i t *ould

t o

d e p r i v e

o f f e n d e r

o f

a chance o f

r e h a b i l i t a t l o n m c r c l y b e c a u s e h e

was	c o n v i c t e d j o i n t l y w i t h

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

was	u n l i k e l y .

In a

l a t e r

p a s s a g c

t h e judgment

(13.7)

i n d i c a t e d

somc

t h e

b a s e s

f o r

variation

(and

hence

d i s p a r i t y )

" C o u r t s

o u g h t

n o t

t o

i n c r e a s e

s e n t e n c e s

beyond

what

i s o b ~ c c t l v c l y a p p r o p r i a t e

t o

t h e

o f f e n c e

€ o r

r easons

unconnec

ted

w i t h

i t ,

a l t h o u g h

t h c

f a c t

t h a t

s u c h

a n oEl-ence

IS p a r t o € a

p a t t e r n o f

o r g a n i s e d

c r i m e

o r

I S p a r t i c u l a r l y

p r e v a l c n t

o r

i s h i g h l y

d a n g e r o u s

a r e

€ a c t o r s

( s o )

i n t i m a t e l y

a s s o c l a t e d

with

t h c

o f f e n c e

t h a t

t h e y

may

l c g i t l m a t e l y

b e

t a k e n

i n t o

a c c o u n t " .

And

l a t c r -

1 1 . . .

i f

thc person charged shows

r e p e n t a n c c ,

c o - o p e r a t c s

w i t h

t h e

p o l i c e ,

g i v c s

l n f o r m a t l o n

r \ h l c h

a s s i s t s

i n

t h e

a p p r c h c n s l o n

o f

111s

co-o l - fenders ,

o r

a p p e a r s

l i k e l y

t o

a b l e

t o

b c

r e h a b i l i t a t e d ,

t h c s e

a r e

r c a s o n s

f o r

leniency".

( T h i s

C o u r t

a l s o

a p p r o v e d

t h c

s t a t e m e n t

r e f e r r e d

t o

v .

Bal l

( .supra)).

. . 8

s u c c i n c t l y

t h e

s u b j e c t

has

been

summar ised

The

Queen

Tiddy

(1969)

S .A .S .P .

p .575

a t 5 7 7

"We

w c r e r e l e r r e d

t o

s e v e r a l

c a s e s

w h e r e

t h e

p r i n c i p l c s

t o

b e

a p p l l e d

i n

s c n t e n c l n g

c o - d c f e n d a n t s

Itere

d lscussed .

lvherc

o t h e r

t h l n g s

are

equal

p e r s o n s

c o n c e r n c d

I n

t h e

same

crime

s h o u l d

r e c e i v e

t h e

same

punishment ;

and w h e r c

o t h e r

t h i n g s

are

n o t

e q u a l

a due discrimination

s h o u l d b c

made".

I t

r e m a i n s

t o

r e c o r d

w h a t

a p p e a r s

the

heac

lnote

R v.

Coyle (1969)

2 N.S.1S.R.

p . 5 3 -

Although

c l e a r f r o m

v. Bavdaz

C19671 1

N.S .W.R.

t h a t ,

i f

% e n t c n c e

i s

o b l e c t i v c l y

a p p r o p r i a t e ,

l e n i e n c y

t o a n o t h e r o f f e n c e

p e r s o n

i n v o l v c d

i n

t h e

n o t

n e c c s s a r l l y

r e a s o n

f o r

i n t e r r e r l n g ,

t h a t

c a s e

r e c o g n i z e s

t h a t d l s p a r i t y

o f

s e n t e n c e s

i n

r e l a t l o n

t o t h e

same

o i f e n c c

1 s g e n e r a l l y

u n d c s i r a b l e .

A c c o r d l n g l y ,

a p p r o p r i a t e

c a s e ,

t h e

a p p c l l a t e

c o u r t

will

i n t e r v e n e

a n d

a d j u s t

scntence

where

i t

1 s r i g h t

a n d

p r o p e r

t o

d o

i n

t h e i n t c r e s t s

o f

l u s t i c e .

1Vlth

t h e a s s i s t a n c e

o i t h c s e v a r ~ o u s

pronouncements,

i t cloes

a p p c a r

t h a t

p a r i t y

1 s

n o t

e s s e n t i a l

i t h e r c d e p a r t u r e

c o - a c c u s e d

a rc

convicted

o f

thc

same

o f l e n c c ;

a n d

may

madc

from

u n i f o r l n

s e n t e n c e s

... 9

I ' .

I n a n c i r cums tances

a p p r o p r i a t e

c a s e .

B u t

I n

t h i s

c a s e

t h c r e

a r c

ich

suggcs t

s e v c r e

s c n t c n c e

( e . g .

a c t i v e

p a r t i c i p a t i o n )

m i g h t

h a v e

b e e n

a p p r o p r l a t e

€ o r

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

a g a l n s t

F a u l l .

C o n v c r s e l y

t h e r c

a r c

o t l l c r

f a c t o r s

w h i c h

I n d i c a t e

t h a t

measure

o i l c n l e n c e o r a t l c a s t

loss

s e v e r i t y

m j g h t

a l s o

h a v e

been

e x t e n d c d

t o

t h c

a p p c l l a n t

a s

a g a l n s t

F a u l l .

n o t h i n g

e m e r g e s

t o

c n a b l e

t o s a y F a ~ ~ l l ' s

s e n t e n c e was

s o p e r f e c t l y a d j u s t e d t h a t

i t

cou ld

sed

a s a

yardstick

o f p e r f c c t l o n

o r t h a t

c o ~ n p a r l s o n o f

a l l

t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

r e l a t c d

t o

F a u l l

o r

t h e

a p p c l l a n t

demanded

f o r him

l c s s e r

s e n t e n c e

t h a n

s h o u l d

h a v c

b e e n

g i v e n r a u l l ,

o r lesser

t h a n was

a c t u a l l y

a w a r d c d

Fau l l .

A s was

s a i d i n -

R v . -

Coe

( 1 9 6 9 )

A l l E . R .

6 5 a t

6 8 -

' l . . .

t h e r e

i s n o p r l n c l p l e

o f

lah

t h a t	s e n t c n c e s	must	s t r i c t l y compare
...
I !

o r p r e s u m a b l y

t h a t

t h e y s h o u l d c o n t r a s t

c o n s i d e r i n g

t h e

a d e q u a c y

r m i g h t

o t h c r w l s e

s c n t c n c c

a n d f o l l o w i n g

n o n - p a r o l e

p e r i o d

t h e r e

t a k e n

l l l t o

a c c o u n t

t h e

a m o n g s t

o t h e r

matters

Accused ' s

a g e ,

c h a r a c t c r ,

b a c k g r o u n d ,

o p p o r t u n ~ t y

T o r

e d u c a t i o n .

2 .

P r e v i o u s

c r i m i n a l

h l s t o r y

o f

t h e

a c c u s c d

3 .

His

modc

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

h ~ m s e l f .

o f

l i f c s u b s e q u e n t

t o

a n y

c r i m i n a l

4 .

l I i s

a t t i t u d e

t o

h i s

o b l i g a t i o n s

generally

111

t h c communlty as shown by h i s l i f c .

5 .	Nature	of	t h e	o f T e n c c	a n d	c l r c u ~ n s t a n c e s
10

6 .

Inducement

o r

p r e s s u r c

o f f c r e d

o t h e r s

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

7 .

The

p r o s p e c t

o f

r e h a b i l l t a t ~ o n .

(See

upon

t h j

s u b j e c t I l a l s h u r y ' s

"Laws

O F England"

4 t h

E d i t i o n ,

Vol .

11,

p a r a g r a p h

4 S 3 .

The

a p p e l l a n t

h a s

b o r n

o n

2 5

J u l y

1 9 5 3

a n d

\cas

t h e r e f o r e

a g c d

2 4

y c a r s when

t h c

o r f e n c c

was

commit ted .

\\.:IS n e v e r a member o f any

community

o r you th

o r

r c l i g i o u s

o r g a n l z a t i o n .

Mls

s c h o o l l n g was

mcagre.

compar ing

h i s

r c c o r d

o f

c o n v l c t l o n s kit11

t h e

A n t e c c d e n t s

R e p o r t ,

i t

sccms

t h a t h i s

f i r s t

two

o f f e n c e s

w e r e

c o m m i t t e d

t h c

a g e

135

y e a r s

a n d 1 4 - 1 / 1 2 t h

y e a r s

whilst

s t i l l a t

s c h o o l .

I t

1 s

I n t e r e s t i n g

t o

n o t e

t h a t ,

I n

E n g l a n d ,

whzn

c o n s l d e r a t l o n

j s

b c ~ n g g l r c n t o

t h e

s e n t c n c e

f o r

o r r e n c e

commltted

when

p e r s o n

j s o v c r 2 1 ,

i t was

p r o v i d c d by

Ch i ld ren

and

Young

P e r s o n s Act

1 9 6 3 s . 1 6

t h a t

o f f e n c e s

commlt ted

be€orc

the

accused

\cas

f o u r t e e n

y e a r s

o l d

m u s t

d l s r c g a r d e d .

S e e

A r c h b o l d

" C r l m i n a l

P l e a d l n g

P r a c t l c e

a n d

Ev idence"

l i d l t l on

pa rag raph

5 5 4 .

A s

r e a d

t h c

e v i d e n c e ,

5omc

d o u b t

c x j s t s

a s

t o

w h c t h e r

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

l e f t

s c h o o l

a t

a g e

i o u r t c c n

o f

f i r t e e n

I t i s wor th

r cmark ing

t ha t

c l a ims

t o

have

becn

"exempted

f r o m

a t t e n d i n g

school"

a t

t h e a g e o f

1 4

" t o

l o o k

a r t e r I~LII I I

w h i l e

Dad

was

i n gao l " .

I t

i s h a r d

t o

l m a g i n c

t h l s

c l a i m

was

f a l s c l j - made

when

l t 1s q u o t e d in

t h e "Weifarc

Repor t" .

T11

t h e same

r e p o r t he

i s quo ted

a s

s a y l n g 111s

rathcr

d r a n k

h e s v l l y ;

and some corroboration € o r a view t h a t

l a n d h i s

m o t h e r )

. .

may

have

suf fc red

f rom

l a c k

o f

a s s i s t a n c c

f r o m

t h e

f a t h c r

1 s

t o

d e r i v e d

f r o m

t h e

f a c t

t h a t

his

f i r s t

o f f ence

was

r e l e a s e d i n t o

t h e c u s t o d y

o f

h l s

m o t h e r .

was

aged l6 and 7 / 1 2 t h y e a r s ,

w o r h n g a s

l a b o u r e r

when

committed

t h i r d o f f c n c c

o f

s t c a l l n g p c t r o l ,

which

might

have

been

the

va lue

01 $ 2 .

Because

the

relatively

m i n o r

n a t u r e

t h c

o f K e n c e s ,

t h e

a p p e l l a n t ' s

a g e

a n d

i a m i l y

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

and

upbr

inging

few

advantages

the

Record

ought

t o r e c e i v e though

l e s s

w e i g h t

t h a n

I t

would

o therwlse .

Ancl

1s n o t s t a t e d

o r t o b e

a s c e r t a i n e d

p r e c i s e l y

by t he c o n v i c t l o n

ev idcncc

i t

d o e s

a p p e a r

t h a t

i t

was

a l t e r h i s l a s t

f o r

s t c a l i n g

( t h e

p c t r o l )

t h a t

h e

m a r r i e d .

From

t h i s t i m e , and he has f a c e d up

h l s

l i f e

seems

t o have

becn

m e r i t o r i o u s

o n e

t o

h l s

r c s p o n s i b l l l t l e s

h o n o u r a b l y .

a p p c a r s

t h a t

up t o

t h e

t i m e

O K

t h e

o f l e n c e s

t h e

a p p c l l a n t

l e s s

o p p o r t u n i t y

f o r

a d v a n c e m e n t

o r

mature

deve lopmcnt

than

mos t

menlbcrs

01 our

community.

I f

his

l apses canno t

excused

t hey

cou

rhaps

Iv r l t t en

down as he

had

gone

wel

long

the

way

t o l l v l n g

down

t h e

e r r o r s a n d m i s f o r t u n e s

o f

h i s p a s t .

Thc

co-accused

Richardson ,

man

with

s l g n l f i c a n t

c r i n i i n s l

r c c o r d ,

c l a i m s

was

h i s

i d e a

t o

the

reakung

a n d

e n t e r i n g ;

a n d

h c

a l s o

c l a i m s

t o

h a v e

s e t

o u t

t o

g e t

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

d r u n k . though

E a r l i c r

h a v c

m e n t l o n c d

t h c

q u c s t l o n

o f a lcohol ; h a r d l y h a v e b e e n c o r n m i t t c d w h i l s t

and

excuse

for

c r imc

which

could

s e r l o u s l y a f f e c t e d

i t ,

. .. 1 2

1 2

i t

may

well

h a v e a s s i s t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t

i n i t i a l l y t o

make

a b a d

d e c i s l o n .

R e c e n t

a u t h o r i t i e s

h e r e

a n d p r c v a l e n t

I n

Eng land

po in t

o u t

t h a t

d i s h o n e s t y

i s

o n e

t h o s e

o f r c n c e s

which

c a l l f o r n

s e n t e n c e oE

impr isonment .

See ,

1 o r

example,

R v. Noylan

C19701 1 Q.R.

1 4 3 , -

R v. Donaldson

87 W.N.

5 0 1 a t 5 0 5 , -

Sloane

(1975)

W.S.W.L.R.

2 0 5

a t

2 1 2

p e r aegg J .

The

Fede ra l

Cour t

o f

A u s t r a l l a

Act

1 9 7 6

P a r t

111

t h e

s o u r c e

o f p a r t l c u l a r

t h i s

C o u r t ' s

j u r i s d i c t i o n .

c o n s i d c r a t i o n

t h e r e o f ,

a n d

i n

ss.27 and 28 i n d i c a t e

t h a t

t h e

a p p c a l

s h o u l d

t r e a t e d

r c - h e a r i n g .

I n

f a r as

the

d c c l s l o n a p p c a l e d

i s

d i s c r e t i o n a r y o n e w o u l d h e s l t n t c

t o d i f f e r

€rom

t h e

e x p e r i c n c c d

t r i a l

Judgc .

I n

a l l

t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

V I C W

i s t h a t

t h c

s en tences

imposed

t he

appe l l an t

were

well

w i t h i n

t h c

a r c a

o f

~ u d l c j a l d i s c r e t l o n o p c n t o t h e l e a r n c d T r i a l

J u d g e

and

not

c a l l

f o r

a n y r e v i s i o n .

I f

t h e

l c n g t h

o f l e n g t h

s e n t e n c e

I S more

c l o s c l y

r e l a t c d

t o

d e t c r r e n c e ,

t h e

01 t h e

n o n - p a r o l e

p e r l o d

i s

more

~ m l n e d l a t c l y

r c l e v a n t

\\.hen

c o n s i d c r l n g r c h s b ~ l i t a t i o n .

And

i t i s t e m p t i n g

t o

s p e c u l a t e

t h a t

when

the

High

Cour t

111

I< v.

Powcr

l31

C . L . R .

G23 e x p r e s s e d disapproval

o f

v . l b i d 202, it

P o r t o l c s i

1 1 9 7 5 )

1 N.S.1V.L.R.

1 0 5 and -

v . S lonne

d i d n o t

r e ~ e c t

a l l t h a t

w a s

s a l d

i n

t h o s c

c a s e s .

S e e

e . g .

p e r

Kcrr

C J .

111 t h e f i r s t

. . . a t 206

and

i n

t h e s e c o n d a t

p . 2 0 9 .

But

the

High

Court

major

judgmcnt

Power 's

case d i d

s t a t c

(11.630)

. 13

"VJe

c o n s i d e r

t h a t

B l a c k b u r n

J .

was

r l g h t

111

d e c l ~ n l n g t o a c c e p t

t h e

principles

s t a t e d i n -

P o r t o l c s l

and -

v . S loane" .

E a r l i e r

t h e

m a J o r l t y

h a d

s a l d

( 6 2 9 )

"To

r e a d

t h e

l e g i s l a t i o n I n t h c

way

have

suggested

f u l f l l s t h e

legislative

i n t e n t l o n

t o

g a t h c r e c l

f rom

the

terms o f t h e Act,

1 . e . t o

p r o v l d e

f o r

m l t l g a t l o n

o f

t h e

punishment

o f

t h e

p r l s o n e r

i n

f a v o u r

o i c o n d l t i o n a l

h i s r c h a b l l i t a t l o n t h r o u g h

i r e e d o l n ,

k h c n

a p p r o p r l a t e ,

o n c c

t h e

p r i s o n e r

has

s e r v e d

t h c

n l l n m u ~ ~ ~

t i m e

t h a t

a Judge

de t e rmlnes

j u s t l c e

r e q u i r c s

t h a t

m u s t

s e r v c

h a v i n g

r e g a r d	t o	a l l	t h e	c i r c u m s t a n c e s	o f	111s
I ,
o f f e n c e	...

The

"Act"

r c i e r r e d t o

was

t h e

P a r o l e

o f Prisoners Act

1 9 6 6 o f

Ne]< Sou th Nales,

which

i s s i m i l a r

t o t h e P a r o l e

Ordinance

1976

the

A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l

T e r r l t o r y .

I t may

o f

c o u r s e

readily

g r a n t e d t h a t

i n

f i x l n g t h c n o n - p a r o l e p e r l o d

Judge

will

g lve

weight

t o h 1 5

e s t i m a t e

o f

t h c

c a p a c i t y

o f

t h c

p r l s o n e r

f o r

r c f o r m a t i o n .

r c t u r n

now

t o t h c f a c t s

o f

t h l s

c r l m e

a n d

t o e x t r a c t p r o p o s l t i o n s r e l a t l n g t o t h e f l s ~ n g o f t h c n o n - p a r o l e

w h a t

a p p e a r s

t o

b e

r e l e v a n t

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

a n d

. .

1 4

1 4

p c r i o d ,

consicler

(1)

The

a p p e l l a n t ' s

e a r l i e r

h i s t o r y

should

weigh

t o o

h e a v i l y

a g a i n s t

h i n l , y o u t h

h a v l n g

r e g a r d

t o

h i s

( t h e n )

and

home

c i r c u m s t a n c c s .

( 2 )

The

a p p e l l a n t

h a d

a p p a r e n t l y

b e g u n

t o l i v e

b e t t c r

l l f c

a f t e r t h i s

u n f o r t u n a t e

s t a r t .

( 3 )

may

h a v e

b e c n

i n d u c e d

t o

l o i n

t h e

c r i m i n a l

e n t e r p r i s e

combmat ion

o f

l i q u o r

and

R l c h a r d s o n ' s

p e r s u a s i o n s .

( 4 )

The

chance

o f

r e h a b ~ l ~ t a t l o n

a p p e a r s

t o

p r o m i s i n g ,

s i n c e

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

was

r e g a r d e d

a s

sound

employee

and

h e

u n d o u b t c d l y

h a s

i n t e r e s t

I n

a n d

motive

t o do we11 i n h i s

home

environment.

P a r t l c u l a r l y

i m p r e s s i v e

i s h i s

a c h i e v c a e n t

i n

p r o v i d i n g

honlc

a n d

" p a y i n g

o f f "

f u r n i t u r e

a n d

E O O ~ S -

matters

w h i c h w e r e

a d v e r t c d

t o

b y

t h c

l c a r n e d t r i a l	Judgc	i n h i s	p r e s e n t e n c e
remarks -

(5 )

" a p p e l l a n t

w c n t

v o l u n t a r i l y

t o

t h e

P o l i c c

S t a t i o n ,

c o n f e s s e d

h i s

c r l m c

a n d

was	c o - o p e r a t i v e " .

I t may

w e l l

b e

t h a t

H1s

Honour

was

I c d t o

d e g r e e

m i s a p p r e h c n s ~ o n o f

t h e f a c t s

t h c

\ \ a y

t h c y

were

p r e s e n t e d

. . .

1 5

y '4

l c t me

say w l t h a l l g o o d

f a l t h - b y

t h e

Crown

P r o s c c u t o r .

I n

i t s

o r i g i n a l

s t a t e m e n t

o f

t h e

f a c t s

a t p.lG

t h e

l e a r n e d

Crown

P r o s c c u t o r

s a l d

"Now

t h c t r u c k

has

s e t on f i r e b y

Mr.

Lovelock

and Nr.

F a u l l "

rvhcreas

f rom

Constable

Owen

t h e

f o l l o l v l n g

e v l d e n c c

was

c l i c i t e d

( 2 5 - 2 9 )

' 'MR.

blcCRUK1' :

Xow ,

O a e n ,

I n

t h c

c o u r s e

y o u r

i n q u i r i e s ,

Mr.

Lovelock salcl t h a t

h e d l d n o t

p u t a match t o o r 1

i g h t

t h e

t r u c k .

t h a t

s o ?

. . .

That

i s

c o r r e c t

FIR.

McCRORY.

But h e saw what

happcncd

tha t

night?

. . . yes.

And h e knela why

t h e

t r u c k

m s

b e i n g

s c t

f l r e t o ?

. . .

Ycs".

T h i s c o u l d h a v e l e f t

His

Honour

r i l t h

t he

unde r s t and ing

tha t

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

h a d

c l c n l e d

t o

Mr.

Oven

t h c a c t i v i t y

o f

l l g h t ~ n g

t h e f ~ r c

w h e r e a s

t h e

f a c t

was

t h a t

h e

h a d

d o n e

s o ;

a n

a t t l t u d c

h a r d l y

l i k e l y

t o

i m p r e s s

Cour t .

The

t r u e

p o s i t i o n

i s now

a c c c p t e d

a s

1 u n d e r s t a n d

It,

1s t h a t

i n f a c t he

d i d

n o t

p l a y a n y a c t i v c p a r t

I n

t h e

Igniting.

The

l e a r n e d t r l a l

Judge

a l s o r e f e r r e d

111s

p r e

s e n t e n c c

r e m a r k s

t o t h e

Rccord

o f

t h c a p p e l l a n t

be ing

. "bad";

b u t

f o r reasons

h a v c

t i . i e d

t o

i n d i c a t e

( v i t h

r e s p c c t )

t e n d

t o t h e

v l c w

t h a t

this

1s n o t bo rne o u t by

c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e R e c o r d

1 t s e l € a n d d l d n o t g i v e d u c

w e i g h t

t o

t h c

c o u n t e r v a l l i n g

f a c t o r s

o r

t h e

a p p e l l a n t ' s

a g e

a n d f a m i l y

c i r c u ~ s t a n c e s

a t

t h c

t i m e .

Earllcr

h a v e

e x p r e s s e d

t h e

o p l n i o n

t h a t

t h e

s e n t e n c e

p a s s e d

has

w ~ t h l n t h c limits

o f a

p r o p e r

~ u d l c ~ a l

d~ s c r e t i o n .

B u t

perhaps

bccause

Ills

Honour

was

u n l n t e n t l o n a l l y

m i s l e d

a s

t o t h e f a c t s

o r

a t tachcc l

wclght

t o

t h e p r i o r

.. .

1 6

c r ~ n ~ l n a l

r c c o r d l e n g t h

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

t h a n ,

one

s u g g e s t s ,

w a r r a n t e d ,

t h e

o f

tunc

f l x c d

t h e

n o n - p a r o l e

p e r i o d

does

n o t

appea r

a d e q u a t e l y t o r e f l c c t

t h e

l e g i s l a t i v e m t e n t l o n w h i c h

r e t c r r e d

t o

and

quotcd

abovc

from Powers '

c a s e .

W i t h Brennan J . , 1 would

agree t h a t

t h e

p c r l o d

s h o u l d

r e d u c e d .

G c n c r n l l y

c o n c u r

i n

t h e

Orcicr

proposed by h m .

[1978] FCA 16

22 Mar 1978