Kelly, A.G. v The Queen

JUDGMENT NO. .296..'1-.-~

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
AUSTRALIAN CAPIT= TERRITORY 1

1 No. ACT G 10 of 1990
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION I

ON APPEAt FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: ANDREW GARY KELLY
Appellant

AND: THE OUEEN
Respondent

CO-: Neaves, Foster and Higgins JJ.
DATE: 4 July 1990

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

We have given consideration to the matters which have been put to us by Mr OIDonnell on behalf of the appellant. However, we are not satisfied that the learned sentencing judge fell into error in fixing a head sentence of

varying the non-parole period.

7 years for the totality of the offences which were before him

although the offences which were committed on 2 June 1989 could well be regarded as more serious than that committed on

24 April 1989. Further, we do not find any basis in the

material that was before the sentencing judge to warrant our

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
I certify that this and the
preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment
Dated: 4 July 1990

Counsel for the appellant : Mr T.J. OrDonnell
Solicitor for the appellant : Legal Aid Office (A.C.T.)
Counsel for the respondent : Mr K. Hempenstall

Solicitor for the respondent : Director of Public

Prosecutions

Date of hearing : 4 July 1990
Date of judgment : 4 July 1990

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Andrew Gary Kelly, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The nature of the dispute was the severity and appropriateness of the sentence, particularly the head sentence of seven years and the non-parole period. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, General Division, which was sitting in the Australian Capital Territory.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the sentencing judge had erred in determining the head sentence and the non-parole period. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the severity of the offences committed on different dates.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented, and concluded that the sentencing judge had not erred in setting the head sentence and the non-parole period. The court found no basis in the material before the sentencing judge to warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court noted that while the offences committed on 2 June 1989 could be considered more serious than those committed on 24 April 1989, this did not necessarily mean that the sentence should be altered. The appeal was dismissed as the court was not satisfied that any error had been made by the sentencing judge.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The reasons for the judgment were certified as true and dated 4 July 1990. The judgment was delivered on the same day as the hearing, 4 July 1990.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Counsel for the appellant	: Mr T.J. OrDonnell
Solicitor for the appellant	: Legal Aid Office (A.C.T.)
Counsel for the respondent	: Mr K. Hempenstall

Date of hearing	: 4 July 1990
Date of judgment	: 4 July 1990