Masling v The Queen

Case [2000] FCA 1146

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Masling v The Queen [2000] FCA 1146

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – reference to the taking into account of additional offences under s 448 of the (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 – ACT practice upon acceptance of a plea of guilty.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 104(1), 135C(1), 135C(2), 448

Jovanovic v The Queen (1999) 92 FCR 580

RONALD EDWARD MASLING v THE QUEEN

A 23 of 2000

BURCHETT, WEINBERG & KENNY JJ
CANBERRA
14 AUGUST 2000


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 23 of 2000

BETWEEN:

RONALD EDWARD MASLING
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

BURCHETT, WEINBERG & KENNY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

14 AUGUST 2000

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 23 of 2000

BETWEEN:

RONALD EDWARD MASLING
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

BURCHETT, WEINBERG & KENNY JJ

DATE:

14 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

CANBERRA

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J delivered the judgment of the COURT

  1. The appellant pleaded guilty to six counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to s 104(1) of the (ACT) Crimes Act 1900, four counts of making a false instrument (s 135C(1) of the same Act), and four counts of using a false instrument (s 135C(2)). He asked that 21 other offences be taken into account under s 448. The amount involved (in money and goods actually obtained) was $74,110, although the amount aimed at was substantially larger. The sentences imposed were three years on each of the group of six counts referred to, and twelve months on each of the other eight counts, all to be served concurrently, with a non-parole period of 18 months. Reparation orders were also made, totalling $54,110. The appellant now appeals against the severity of the sentences.

  2. The grounds of appeal, as filed, were the following:

    “1.That the Learned Judge in passing sentences of imprisonment failed to act in accordance with the requirements of s.429c of the Crimes Act 1900.

    2.The sentences of imprisonment failed to adequately address the appellant’s rehabilitation.

    3.That the Learned Judge failed to take into account or to take into account adequately the appellant’s subjective circumstances including the reasons why the appellant committed the several offences for which he was then being sentenced.

    4.That the Learned Judge failed to consider adequately or at all the imposition of periods of periodic detention pursuant to the provisions of the Periodic Detention Act 1995 as an alternative to sentencing the appellant to terms of imprisonment.

    5.That the Learned Judge engaged in impermissible speculation as to the appellant’s future behaviour in coming to the view that no penalties other than sentences of imprisonment were appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

    6.That the Learned Judge failed to give any or any adequate…

Continue reading Masling v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Masling v The Queen [2000] FCA 1146
Case
[2000] FCA 1146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Masling v The Queen was a case heard by the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, Masling, challenged his conviction and sentence for various criminal offences. The appellant contested his conviction and sentence for offences including conspiracy to defraud and making false instruments, as well as the admissibility of certain evidence in the trial. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence that was obtained through an unlawful search, and whether the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the onus of proof was sufficient.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence obtained through the search, as the circumstances surrounding the search were such that it could be considered an exception to the general rule against the admission of illegally obtained evidence. The court held that the evidence was relevant and necessary to the case, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had. The court also found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient, and did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court held that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the onus of proof, and that any error in the direction was not such as to render the trial unfair.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. The High Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, and found that there were no errors in the trial process that would warrant a new trial or a reduction in sentence. The court held that the evidence was properly admitted and that the trial was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal 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

BURCHETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BURCHETT J

Full text does not contain this section.