Gyory v The Queen

Case [2012] ACTCA 28

EUGENE GYORY v THE QUEEN [2012]
ACTCA 28 (9 May 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – whether the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider the mental health of the appellant – whether the sentencing judge erred by making the appellant a vehicle for general deterrence – whether the sentencing judge erred in re-sentencing by failing to take account of the circumstances of the offending

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – breach of good behaviour order – whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to re-sentence the appellant in the same way as applied to sentencing upon conviction for the offences – whether general deterrence inappropriate given diagnosed mental illnesses of appellant

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110

Wilkins v Hague and Brian [2011] ACTSC 189
R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Mooney (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, VIC, Young CJ, Lush and Jenkinson JJ, 21 June 1978)

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 40 - 2011
No. SCC 58 of 2011

Judges:        Higgins CJ, Penfold and Rares JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           9 May 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 40 - 2011
  )          No. SCC 58 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:EUGENE GYORY

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Penfold and Rares JJ
Date:  9 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. With respect to CC09/7337, the sentence of imprisonment be reduced from one year and six months to one year and three months.

  1. With respect to CC09/7416, the sentence of imprisonment be reduced from nine months to six months, which is to be served concurrently with CC09/7337.

  1. With respect to CC11/2233, the sentence of imprisonment be reduced from one year and seven months to one year and three months, which is to be accumulated on CC09/7337 as to nine months.

  1. The appellant is therefore to serve two years of imprisonment from 23 June 2011.

  1. The appellant be eligible for parole on 22 June 2012.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 40 - 2011
  )          No. SCC 58 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:EUGENE GYORY

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Penfold and Rares JJ
Date:  9 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIGGINS CJ:

  1. On 23 June 2011, the appellant was sentenced upon a plea of guilty in respect of an offence of possessing a drug of dependence and for breach of a good behaviour order, which I had imposed in respect of an aggravated burglary…

Continue reading Gyory v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gyory v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 28
Case
[2012] ACTCA 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Gyory, appealed against sentences imposed by a sentencing judge in the County Court of Victoria. The appeal concerned the severity of the sentences and alleged errors in the sentencing process, specifically regarding the consideration of the appellant's mental health, the application of general deterrence, and the circumstances of the offending.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the appellant's mental health, whether the judge erred in making the appellant a vehicle for general deterrence, and whether the judge erred in re-sentencing by failing to take account of the circumstances of the offending. A related issue was whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to re-sentence the appellant in the same way as applied to sentencing upon conviction for the offences, particularly in light of the diagnosed mental illnesses of the appellant and the inappropriateness of general deterrence in such circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge had considered the appellant's mental health, the weight given to it was insufficient. The court also determined that the sentencing judge had erred in making the appellant a vehicle for general deterrence, particularly given the appellant's diagnosed mental illnesses. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part.

With respect to the conviction under CC09/7337, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year and six months to one year and three months.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

With respect to CC09/7337, the sentence of imprisonment be reduced from one year and six months to one year and three months.

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.