Gilligan v The Queen

In *Gilligan v The Queen*, the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal considered an appeal against sentence. The applicant had initially pleaded not guilty to an offence but changed his plea to guilty after the complainant had given evidence in chief. The parties then agreed on a set of facts for sentencing purposes.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge erred in taking into account facts beyond those agreed upon by the parties when imposing sentence, and whether this constituted a lack of procedural fairness. The applicant also argued that a different sentence should have been imposed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that a trial judge is not bound by agreed facts when sentencing, particularly where the change of plea occurs after the complainant has given evidence. The Court reasoned that the purpose of sentencing is to impose a just penalty, and this requires the judge to have a full understanding of the circumstances of the offence. While agreed facts are helpful, they do not preclude the judge from considering other relevant information, provided that the accused is given an opportunity to respond. The Court found no lack of procedural fairness in this instance.

Consequently, the Court granted the applicant an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and granted leave to appeal, but ultimately dismissed the appeal.