Debates of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, February 2004
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. ACTCA 46 - 2006 No. SCC 192 of 2006
Judges: Higgins CJ, Connolly and Cowdroy JJ Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory Date: 17 May 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE) No. ACTCA 46 – 2006 ) No. SCC 192 of 2006 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) )
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:MICHAEL IAN LAWRENCE
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
ORDER
Judges: Higgins CJ, Connolly and Cowdroy JJ Date of order: 4 May 2007 Date of judgment: 17 May 2007 Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE) No. ACTCA 46 – 2006 ) No. SCC 192 of 2006 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) )
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:MICHAEL IAN LAWRENCE
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
Judges: Higgins CJ, Connolly and Cowdroy JJ Date of order: 4 May 2007 Date of judgment: 17 May 2007 Place: Canberra
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
This is an appeal from a sentence of Crispin J who, on 4 December 2006, sentenced the appellant in respect of two pleas of guilty to the counts of trafficking methylamphetamine and trafficking MDMA, both substances being controlled drugs. Pursuant to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (the Criminal Code), each of these offences carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or 1000 penalty units or both. His Honour sentenced the appellant to five years imprisonment in respect of the count of trafficking in methylamphetamine, and three years imprisonment in respect of the count of trafficking in MDMA, and ordered that both periods be served concurrently and backdated to reflect time spent in custody. He imposed a non-parole period of two years.
On the hearing of the appeal on 4 May 2007 we dismissed the appeal and indicated that we would provide our reasons. We now publish our reasons.
The Offences
His Honour described the circumstances of the offences as they emerged from the agreed statement of facts tendered before him. He said:
... following a warrant obtained pursuant to section 46A of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act of 1979 police intercepted and recorded numerous telephone calls to and from a mobile telephone number and the landline number,…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Lawrence v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lawrence v The Queen [2007] ACTCA 10
Case
[2007] ACTCA 10
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties to this appeal were the applicant, Lawrence, and the respondent, The Queen. The dispute concerned the applicant's sentence for a criminal offence, specifically whether a change in legislation had reduced the applicable penalty range. The appeal was heard by Higgins CJ, Connolly and Cowdroy JJ.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the amendments to the *Penalties and Sentences Act 1992* (Qld) enacted in 2005, which reduced the maximum penalty for the offence of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death, applied retrospectively to offences committed before the amendments came into effect. The court was required to determine if the applicant should be sentenced under the law as it stood at the time of the offence or under the amended, more lenient, penalty provisions.
The court reasoned that the amendments to the *Penalties and Sentences Act 1992* (Qld) were not retrospective in operation. Applying established principles of statutory interpretation, the court held that legislative changes to penalty provisions are presumed to operate prospectively unless there is a clear legislative intention to the contrary. In this instance, the amending legislation did not contain any express words indicating retrospective application. Therefore, the applicant was to be sentenced according to the penalty provisions in force at the time the offence was committed.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
4 May 2007 (orders); 17 May 2007 (Date of judgment)