Connelly v Allan

The case involved an appeal by Todd Andrew Connelly against his conviction and sentence for breaching a Domestic Violence Order and a Good Behaviour Order. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was upheld. Connelly was to be re-sentenced.

The main issues in the appeal were whether the learned magistrate failed to warn herself adequately about the voice identification evidence and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. The appeal against conviction focused on the adequacy of the warning required under s 116 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) about voice identification evidence. The court found that while a warning should have been given, it would have been significantly confined and would not likely have affected the decision of the magistrate. Therefore, there was no miscarriage of justice, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Regarding the appeal against sentence, the court found that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was too severe for the nature of the offences committed. The court considered that a suspended sentence with a Good Behaviour Order and community service conditions would be more appropriate, given the circumstances of the case. The appeal against sentence was upheld, and Connelly was to be re-sentenced. The court invited the parties to provide any further material and submissions on the re-sentencing.