Channon v The Queen

[1978] FCA 16

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. 26 of 1977

Coram :	Brennan, Deane, McGregor JJ.
Canberra

22nd March, 1978

. r

1.

r

5 .

7 .

S

.

I 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 of hls

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

f

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	) No. P.C. 26 of 1977
1
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 of 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 of

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 be

it.

-2-

I have found the ques t ion whether the l earned Judge

was i n e r r o r i n f i x i n g a non-parole per iod of one year an

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 no s e l f - e v i d e n t

element of 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 of 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 be se rved concurren t ly wi th the two yea r s en tence . The

range and quant i ty o f the goods s to len and the wantonness of

t h e s e t t i n g a l i g h t of 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 it 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 In thelr commisslon. On 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 my v iew, g rounds fo r f l x lng a 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 t h a t h e 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 of s e r l o u s

of fences o f 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 , he

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 a v e h i c l e w i t h o u t a l i cence and g lv ing

a f a l s e name and address, presumably when unab le t o p roduce a

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

of 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 as a 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 he 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 or schoolboy of fences

a t 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

a 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 th ree o f fences appeared f 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 . On the a f t e rnoon o f t he day on 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 a 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 by

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 of 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 is 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 , of 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 f u l l 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 d o n o t m i n i m i z e

the compleke involvement of 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 so f a r as 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 a 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

X 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 a good behaviour bond which he had en tered as

- 5-

a c o n d i t i o n of 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 by 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 of 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 of 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 a

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 by 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 o f h i s bond . wanton H i s o f f ence o f ma l i c ious i n -~ury a t

n ight had c i rcumstances , Involved des t ruc t ion of p roper ty . In a l l t h e

a 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 ;n 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 of 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 pe r iod f i xed i n t he case

of t h e a p p e l l a n t I n r e s p e c t of 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 as 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 of 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 of t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , I 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 of 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 so f a r as 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 by error of such a k i n d as t o w a r r a n t

i n t e r v e n t i o n . I 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 by Brennan J.

f -l

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

DISTRICT REGISTRY	__-	1
l

GENERAL DIVISION 1

4

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 of March 1 9 7 8

REASOUS TOR JUDGPIEKT

McGREGOR .J: On 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 o f 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 . a 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 on

On 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 as f o l l o w s :

... 2

2

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 b e 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 a 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, by a f e l low accused , R icha rdson .

An o u t l i n e o i t h c f ac t s i s s e t out in the Judgment o f 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 o f t h e t h l r d . I t 1s 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 on

r e t a i n i n g o r r e a l l s l n g o n 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 a 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 a 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 on some n o t i o n o i expediency by reason

o f a 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 .

. . . 3

3

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 of l q u o r p r o v i d e s no 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 by

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 it 1s n o t e d t h a t t h e y

werc no t 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 as t o t h c i n s u p p o r t s e v e r i t y of 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 to

e x e r c i s e h i s d i s c r c t l o n on one o r

two grounds v i z

l 'he sen tence -

( i ) p r o c e c d e d on an 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 a 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 he d ld no t g 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 by no means a s b a d as t h a t o f F a u l l .

4

'+ ' : .

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

of thls second g r o u n d I n s o f a r a s it i s based on a

q u e s t i o n o f a c o m p a r i s o n o f 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 it 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 . A r e l e v a n t s t a t e m e n t o f a 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 a 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 o f 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 wh lch t hey have

b c c n a c t i n g i n c o n c e r t , ~t may bc

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

-	. .	--	-	..-. -
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 a chance

o f re lorm whereas I t may lf 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 a 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 a s e v c r e s c n t c n c e on

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

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 a 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 a

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 a ~ 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 ) 5 Cr. App. R . 6 4 where he s a l d -

“We do n o t d e a l by merc comparjson

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

6

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 a 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 b e

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 1s 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 In 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 . 6 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 b e a v o i d e d , t h c r c i s

no 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 be

t o d e p r i v e an

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 01 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 - i

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 b e

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 in

R v . Bal l ( .supra)).

. . 8

6

More s u c c i n c t l y t h e s u b j e c t has been summar ised in

The Queen v 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 in the heac lnote o f

- R v. Coyle (1969) 2 N.S.1S.R. p . 5 3 -

Although it is c l e a r f r o m - R v. Bavdaz

C19671 1 N.S .W.R. 3 t h a t , i f a % 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

1s n o t n e c c s s a r l l y a 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 , m an

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 a scntence

where i t 1 s r i g h t a n d p r o p e r t o d o so 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 be madc from u n i f o r l n s e n t e n c e s

... 9

I ' . .L 9

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

wh ich suggcs t a more s e v c r e s c n t c n c e

( e . g . more 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

I

/

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 as 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

a 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 . B u t n o t h i n g e m e r g e s t o c n a b l e mc 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 be u sed

a s a yardstick o f p e r f c c t l o n o r t h a t a 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 a 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

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

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 be 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 -

1. 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 by 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 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 .

He \\.: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. By 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 a t t h c a g e o f

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 an o r r e n c e

commltted when a 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 b e

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" 39 th l i d l t l on pa rag raph 5 5 4 .

A s 1 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 he 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 h c l a n d h i s m o t h e r )

. . 11

may have suf fc red f rom a 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 b e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t on his f i r s t

o f f ence he 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 .

He was aged l6 and 7 / 1 2 t h y e a r s , w o r h n g a s a l a b o u r e r

when hc committed a 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 to the va lue 01 $ 2 .

Because o f the relatively m i n o r n a t u r e 01 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 an upbr inging wi th 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

it 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 a 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 .

So it 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 h a d 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 be excused t hey cou ld pe rhaps be Iv r l t t en

down as he had gone wel l a 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 , a man with R 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 It was h i s i d e a t o do the b 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 T 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 no excuse for a c r imc which could

s e r l o u s l y a f f e c t e d by 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 o f 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 , - K v. Sloane (1975) 1 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

1s 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 . A 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 b e t r e a t e d as a r c - h e a r i n g . I n so 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 , my V I C W i s t h a t t h c

s en tences imposed on 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 do 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 a 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

- K 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 - R 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 i ty judgmcnt In Power 's

case d i d s t a t c (11.630) -

.. . 13

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 - R v. P o r t o l c s l

and - R 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

we have suggested f u l f l l s t h e

legislative i n t e n t l o n t o b e 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 h c 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 of 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 be 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 a 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 .

To 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 , I 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 no t 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 a 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 ) He 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 by a

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 b e 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 a sound employee and

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

m i s a p p r e h c n s ~ o n o f t h e f a c t s by t h c \ \ a y t h c y were p r e s e n t e d

. . . 1 5

y '4 15

- 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 , Mr O a e n , I n t h c c o u r s e o f

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 . Is t h a t s o ?

. . . That i s c o r r e c t ,.

FIR. McCRORY. But h e saw what happcncd on 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 a 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 ln 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 as be ing

. "bad"; b u t f o r reasons I 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 ) I 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

a 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 I 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 more wclght t o t h e p r i o r

.. . 1 6

1 6

c r ~ n ~ l n a l r c c o r d l e n g t h 01 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 , it

w a r r a n t e d , t h e o f tunc f l x c d as 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 1s 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

be r e d u c e d . G c n c r n l l y I c o n c u r i n t h e Orcicr proposed by h m .

..