Geiger v The Queen - [2001] FCA 475

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Geiger v The Queen [2001] FCA 475
SENTENCING - appeal against severity – disparity of sentence with co-offender – whether sufficient to give rise to justified sense of grievance.
SENTENCING – appeal against severity – plea of guilty – whether taken into account – whether given sufficient weight – whether discount for plea should be specified.
SENTENCING – time spent in custody prior to sentence – section 451 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – whether to be “reckoned” at time of sentence or after.
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No 2) 1993 (ACT)
Commonwealth Prisoners Act (Report No 43, 1988, AGPS, Canberra)
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
The Queen v Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Carberry [2000] ACTSC 60
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
Keen v R [2000] FCA 940
R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Carrion (1993) 69 A Crim R 230
R v Wishart & Jenkins [1994] 2 Qd R 421
Short v R (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, 13 May 1994)
Antonovic v R (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, 20 June 1995)
On appeal from the Supreme Court of the ACT
HANK STEPHEN GEIGER v THE QUEEN
A98 OF 1999
BEAUMONT ACJ, MILES and GYLES JJ
CANBERRA
27 April 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
A98 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

HANK STEPHEN GEIGER
APPELLANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT ACJ, MILES and GYLES JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

27 APRIL 2001

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be allowed in part.
2.So much of the sentence that fixed a non-parole period of two years be set aside and in its place a non-parole period be fixed to expire on 23 July 2001.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 98 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

HANK STEPHEN GEIGER
APPELLANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT ACJ, MILES & GYLES JJ

DATE:

27 APRIL 2001

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEAUMONT ACJ:

I agree with Miles J that the appeal should be allowed in respect of the fixing of the non-parole period. I also agree with the observations of Gyles J on the operation of s 451.

I certify that paragraph numbered one (1) is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Beaumont.
Associate:
Dated: 27 April 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A98 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

HANK STEPHEN GEIGER
APPELLANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT ACJ, MILES and GYLES JJ

DATE:

27 APRIL 2001

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MILES J:

This is an appeal against the…

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 Geiger v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Geiger v The Queen [2001] FCA 475
Case: [2001] FCA 475
Decision Date: 27 APRIL 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Geiger, sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory heard the appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. Specifically, the appellant argued that the non-parole period of two years was excessive given the circumstances of the case and his personal history.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the need for consistency in sentencing outcomes. It found that the trial judge had erred in not adequately considering the appellant's personal circumstances, including his age and health, as well as the nature of his involvement in the drug trafficking. The court determined that the two-year non-parole period was indeed excessive and disproportionate to the offence and the appellant's circumstances. Consequently, the court set aside the original non-parole period and substituted it with a new period that would expire on 23 July 2001.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the non-parole period being the only aspect of the sentence altered. The remainder of the sentence remained unchanged. The court's decision ensured that the appellant's sentence was proportionate to his crime and took into account his personal circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed in part.

2. So much of the sentence that fixed a non-parole period of two years be set aside and in its place a non-parole period be fixed to expire on 23 July 2001.

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.

BETWEEN:	HANK STEPHEN GEIGER APPELLANT
AND:	THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	BEAUMONT ACJ, MILES and GYLES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	27 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 98 OF 1999

JUDGES:	BEAUMONT ACJ, MILES & GYLES JJ
DATE:	27 APRIL 2001
PLACE:	CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A98 OF 1999