CRIMINAL LAW - numerous property offences committed by two youths - several offences committed in company - a number of offences committed alone - pleas of guilty entered at first instance to all offences - additional offences requested to be taken into account in sentencing - period of imprisonment imposed at first instance - appeal against severity of sentences - relevant factors to be considered - nature of offences and degree of participation of co-offenders - age of offenders at the time offences were committed - degree of criminality exhibited by co-offenders - relevance of remorse - the effect of early plea of guilt upon discount in sentence - antecedents of offenders - relevance of offenders' disturbed and abusive family backgrounds in sentencing - relevance of drug abuse in relation to commission of offence and sentencing - failure of trial judge to adequately consider offenders' prospects for rehabilitation and efforts made by offender to rehabilitate himself - significance of the fact that some offences were committed while offenders were on bail -sentences imposed found to be manifestly excessive in light of offenders' youth and deprived family backgrounds - need for sentence to be both retributive and deterrent - consideration of deterrence should not mandate higher sentence than that warranted by totality of criminal conduct - appeal allowed - sentences appealed from set aside - new sentences substituted.
R v Kelly(1993) 113 ALR 535 Talbot v R(1992) 34 FCR 100 R v Richards [1981] 2 NSWLR 464 R v Martin, unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Hunt CJ at CL, Enderby and Allen JJ, 19 March 1992
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
JASON ALLAN DOUGLAS v THE QUEEN
ACT G4 of 1995
ANTHONY JOHN ALBONE v THE QUEEN
ACT G6 of 1995
Coram: von Doussa, Higgins and Nicholson JJ
Date: 4 April 1995
Place: Canberra
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. ACT G4 of 1995
BETWEEN: JASON ALLAN DOUGLAS
Appellant
AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent
No. ACT G6 of 1995
BETWEEN: ANTHONY JOHN ALBONE
Appellant
AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDER
CORAM: von Doussa, Higgins and Nicholson JJ PLACE: Canberra DATE: 4 April 1995
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeals be allowed.
The sentences appealed from be set aside.
In lieu of the sentences set aside, in respect of the charge of arson, the appellant, Anthony John Albone, be sentenced to 2 years 6 months imprisonment, to date from 24 November 1994, to be released after 6 months from that date upon entering into a recognisance, self in the sum of $1,500.00, that he will be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years from the date of such release and that he will, during that period:
(i)Accept the supervision on probation of the Director of Adult Corrective Services or…
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 Douglas v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Douglas v The Queen [1995] FCA 411
Case
[1995] FCA 411
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeals were from sentences imposed on the appellants, Jason Allan Douglas and Anthony John Albone, by his Honour Justice Gallop in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 20 December 1994. Douglas had pleaded guilty to three counts of property offences and Albone to 14 counts. They were heard together by von Doussa, Higgins and Nicholson JJ in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellants were convicted of numerous property offences. They had committed several offences together and a number of offences alone. They had both pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and had fully cooperated with police. The trial judge had considered that Albone was more culpable than Douglas and had imposed harsher sentences on him. The appellants were young offenders with deprived and abusive family backgrounds, who had begun abusing drugs and alcohol at a young age. Both had expressed remorse and had prospects for rehabilitation. The appellants appealed on the ground that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
The court found that the sentences were manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellants' youth, deprived and abusive family backgrounds, drug abuse and prospects for rehabilitation. The trial judge had failed to adequately consider the appellants' prospects for rehabilitation and their efforts to rehabilitate themselves. The sentences imposed did not accord with the totality of the criminal conduct. Consideration of the need for deterrence should not mandate a higher sentence than the totality of the criminal conduct warranted. The appeal was allowed and the sentences set aside. In lieu of the sentences set aside, new sentences were substituted.