Legal Research
Cases
Channon v The Queen

Channon v The Queen

Case [1978] FCA 16 22 March 1978

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Channon v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Channon v The Queen [1978] FCA 16
Case: [1978] FCA 16
Decision Date: 22 Mar 1978

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brian Dennis Lovelock appealed against his sentence to the Federal Court of Australia. Lovelock was convicted of three offences: breaking and entering and stealing, stealing a motor truck, and malicious injury at night. The trial judge sentenced Lovelock to a total of two years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence, particularly the non-parole period. The court considered various factors in sentencing, including the nature of the offences, the appellant's background, and the principle of parity in sentencing co-accused individuals. The court held that while the sentence was within the trial judge's discretion, the non-parole period was affected by error and should be reduced. The court ordered that the non-parole period be reduced to nine months.

Orders