SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Edwin v The Queen |
Citation: | [2014] ACTCA 47 |
Hearing Date(s): | 7 August 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 27 October 2014 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Walmsley and Robinson AJJ |
Decision: | Appeal allowed. Set aside the sentences imposed by the trial judge. The appellant is sentenced as per [92]-[95]. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – Appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether failure to take good character into account – whether irrelevant matters taken into account – concurrency APPEAL – Appeal against sentence – common nonparole period imposed for both Territory and federal offences APPEAL – Appeal against sentence – misstatement of maximum penalty – whether a material error |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 34 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 61, 64, 65 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 474.17, 474.19, 474.27 |
Cases Cited: | Achurch v The Queen (2014) 306 ALR 566 Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 Siganto v TheQueen (1998) 194 CLR 656 |
Parties: | Navin Edwin (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr S Gill (Appellant) Ms M Jones (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Craig Lynch & Associates (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 66 of 2013; SCC 60, 61A and 61B of 2011 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 26 September 2013 Case Title: R v Edwin Court File Number(s): SCC 60 of 2011; SCC 61A of 2011; SCC 61B of 2011 |
THE COURT:
The Appeal
The Court will consider the following matters:
(a)The Appeal [1] to [8]
(b)The Hearing of the Appeal [9] to [20]
(c)The Grounds of Appeal [21] to [27]
(d)Trial Judge’s Findings [28] to [33]
(e)Treatment of Character Evidence [34] to [38]
(f)Use of Evidence - Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 34, [39] to [45]
(g)Objective Seriousness [46] to [60]
(h)Concurrency of Sentences [61] to [69]
(i)Manifestly Excessive [70] to [80]
(j)Crimes Act 1914
Continue reading Edwin v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Edwin v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 47
- Case
- [2014] ACTCA 47
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were demonstrably wrong in law, considering the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the offences and the offender. This involved assessing whether the sentencing judge had properly weighed all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offences, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the impact of any errors made by the trial judge, such as the misstatement of the maximum penalty, on the overall fairness of the sentencing process.
The Court of Appeal found that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had erred in several respects. Specifically, the court determined that the good character of the appellant had not been given sufficient weight, and that certain irrelevant matters had been improperly taken into account. The misstatement of the maximum penalty was also considered a material error. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the sentences were set aside, and new sentences were imposed by the Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed. Set aside the sentences imposed by the trial judge. The appellant is sentenced as per [92]-[95].
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.