Griffiths v The Queen

Raymond Rolland Griffiths sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from orders of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute concerned the sentencing of Griffiths for multiple offences, including armed robbery with wounding and other counts of armed robbery. The initial sentence was imposed by a District Court judge, who set a head sentence of 12 years and a non-parole period of four-and-a-half years, applying the principle of totality. However, two of the offences fell under section 20A of the *Probation and Parole Act*, which mandates a non-parole period of three-quarters of the head sentence for serious offences committed after 1 January 1988. The sentencing judge had exercised a discretion under section 21(3) of the Act to depart from this statutory requirement, setting a lower non-parole period.

The legal issues before the High Court revolved around the interpretation and application of section 21(3) of the *Probation and Parole Act*. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in exercising his discretion to depart from the statutory non-parole period prescribed by section 20A. The Crown appealed the original sentence, arguing that the head sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed, increasing the head sentence for the armed robbery with wounding to 15 years and, by operation of law, setting the non-parole period at three-quarters of this new head sentence, which was 11 years and three months.

The High Court's consideration of the application for special leave focused on the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to increase the head sentence and its subsequent refusal to exercise the discretion under section 21(3) to mitigate the non-parole period. The applicant contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in its approach to the head sentence and in its refusal to apply the discretion available under section 21(3), which allows for departure from the statutory non-parole period if the court determines the circumstances warrant it. The application thus raised an important question of law concerning the proper application of sentencing principles and statutory provisions relating to non-parole periods.

The application for special leave to appeal was ultimately dismissed by the High Court.