Massey v The Queen

Case [1999] FCA 257

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Massey v The Queen [1999] FCA 257

MATHEW MASSEY v THE QUEEN
AG 85 OF 1997

GALLOP, MATHEWS & MADGWICK JJ

5 MARCH 1999

CANBERRA


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

 AG 85  OF   1997

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

BETWEEN:

MATHEW MASSEY
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

GALLOP, MATHEWS and MADGWICK JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

5 MARCH 1999

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be allowed.

2.The head sentence of four years’ imprisonment to date from the expiration of the sentence that the appellant was then serving is confirmed.

3.The non-parole period to commence on 11 September 1995 is varied to the effect that the non-parole period expires on 10 February 1999.

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

  AG 85 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

MATHEW MASSEY
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

GALLOP, MATHEWS and MADGWICK JJ

DATE:

5 MARCH 1999

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GALLOP J:

  1. This is an appeal against the severity of sentence imposed by Miles CJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 26 June 1997.  The appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment to date from the expiration of the sentence that he was then serving and a non-parole period commencing on 11 September 1995 to expire on 10 August 1999 was fixed.  As the Crown has pointed out in its submissions, the effect of that sentence was that the appellant was ordered to serve a minimum of two further years in custody.  The appellant has what could only be described as a very bad criminal record for one as young as him.

  2. At the time of sentencing he was already serving a term of imprisonment, being a term imposed when he was re-sentenced to three years and 11 months from 11 September 1995 with a new non-parole period of one year 11 months.  And so the effect of the sentence on 26 June 1997 was that he was going to be five years in custody before being eligible for parole on 10 August 1999. 

  3. The appellant has appeared in person and addressed us about his progress in rehabilitation of himself, particularly over the last 12 months.  On any view of what he has told us from the bar table, none of which is disputed by the Crown, he has made wonderful progress of his own rehabilitation and has demonstrated from what he said from the bar table that he is very determined to stay on the right side of the law from now on.

  4. For myself, I was very impressed with his presentation.  What is particularly significant is that he has family support when he finally earns his parole. Family support is the core of rehabilitation if the prisoner lets it operate to its full extent.  Furthermore,…

Continue reading Massey v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Massey v The Queen [1999] FCA 257
Case
[1999] FCA 257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Massey, was convicted for drug trafficking offences and was sentenced to a head sentence of four years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. Massey appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to consider the principles of sentencing and the proportionality of the sentence imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and therefore, whether it was appropriate to exercise the court's discretion under section 17B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to vary the sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing in Australia, which require a sentence to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. The court also had to consider the particular circumstances of the appellant and the need for the sentence to serve purposes such as deterrence and rehabilitation.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence and the appellant's background. The court noted that the sentence did not adequately reflect the appellant's relatively minor role in the drug trafficking operation and his otherwise unblemished criminal record. The court exercised its discretion under section 17B to vary the sentence, confirming the head sentence of four years but altering the non-parole period to ensure it aligned more closely with the principles of proportionality and deterrence.

The court allowed the appeal, confirmed the head sentence but varied the non-parole period, setting it to expire on 10 February 1999. This decision underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the court's role in ensuring sentences are just and appropriate to the circumstances of each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The head sentence of four years’ imprisonment to date from the expiration of the sentence that the appellant was then serving is confirmed.

3. The non-parole period to commence on 11 September 1995 is varied to the effect that the non-parole period expires on 10 February 1999.

Note:

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.