SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen |
Citation: | [2017] ACTCA 16 |
Hearing Date: | 31 October 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 9 May 2017 |
Before: | Refshauge, Burns and Rangiah JJ |
Decision: | Each of the appeals be dismissed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – aggravated robbery – attempted aggravated robbery – |
Legislation Cited: | Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 37E(2)(a) and 37O(7) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44 and 310 |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 |
Parties: | Howard Hall (First Appellant) Albert Barker (Second Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr J Stewart (First Appellant) Mr B Dean (Second Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) (ACTCA 6 of 2016) Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Appellant) (ACTCA 9 of 2016) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Numbers: | ACTCA 6 of 2016; ACTCA 9 of 2016 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Before: Murrell CJ Date of Decision: 4 February 2016 Case Title: R v Hall; R v Barker Citation: [2016] ACTSC 11 |
THE COURT:
The appellants, Howard Hall and Albert Barker, each pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and one count of attempted aggravated robbery contrary to ss 44 and 310 of the Criminal Code.
On 4 February 2016, Murrell CJ (“the sentencing Judge”) sentenced the appellants.
Mr Hall was sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling nine years, nine months, with a non parole period of five years, nine months. Mr Barker was sentenced to terms totalling seven years, five months imprisonment, with a non parole period of three years, nine months. See R v Hall; R v Barker [2016] ACTSC 11. They have both appealed against those sentences. The appeals were heard together and it is convenient to deal with them together.
Mr Hall was also sentenced to six months imprisonment for a breach of a Good Behaviour Order. He has…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] ACTCA 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed were demonstrably excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in their application of the totality and parity principles when sentencing the appellants as co-offenders. The court was also required to consider the weight given to the appellants' Aboriginality in the sentencing determination.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the sentencing judge's approach. The court affirmed that Aboriginality could be a relevant factor in sentencing, provided it was properly considered within the broader sentencing framework. The court was satisfied that the sentencing judge had adequately applied the totality principle, ensuring that the aggregate sentence reflected the seriousness of all offences committed by each appellant, and had also properly considered the parity principle in relation to co-offenders. The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive.
Orders
Orders of the court
Each of the appeals be dismissed.
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.