Re: ANDREW DAVID TREGONNING
And: THE QUEEN
No. ACT G 324 of 1984
Criminal Law
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Bowen C.J.
Fox J.
Blackburn J.
CATCHWORDS
Criminal Law - Appeal from sentence - Whether sentence excessive - Considerations which apply in fixing non-parole period.
Probation and Parole Act 1983 (N.S.W.)
Probation and Parole Regulation 1984 (N.S.W.)
HEARING
CANBERRA
#DATE 6:2:1985
ORDER
The sentence of five years imprisonment be confirmed.
The non-parole period ordered by the trial judge be set aside and in lieu thereof the appellant serve a
non-parole period of two years.
JUDGE1
The appellant, Andrew David Tregonning, appeals from a sentence and non-parole period imposed in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on a charge to which the appellant pleaded guilty. The appellant was charged with one Stephen Andrew McKenzie of robbing Christopher Byron Carter of a sum of cash and immediately afterwards using corporal violence upon him. Mr. McKenzie also pleaded guilty but there is no appeal by him before us.
The facts are that at about 2:30am on Friday, 9 December 1983, at a discotheque in Canberra City the two accused agreed between themselves that they would rob Christopher Byron Carter. In furtherance of their plan Mr. Tregonning, pretending to be a homosexual, invited the victim who was a homosexual, to his flat to engage in homosexual activities between the three of them. Mr. Carter agreed. They went to the flat and upon entering the flat Mr. Tregonning suggested to Mr. Carter that he remove his clothes, which he did, and in the presence of the two accused commenced masturbating.
Both accused then proceeded to rain punches upon Mr. Carter and Mr. Tregonning suggested to Mr. McKenzie that he go through the victim's clothes, which Mr. McKenzie did taking $7 from the clothing, giving $5 to Mr. Tregonning. Thus they had achieved their purpose of robbing the victim but they did not desist. They then proceeded to terrify and humiliate him. Mr. McKenzie produced a pen knife from his pocket and ran it up and down the victim's legs in a threatening way. Mr. Tregonning also produced a knife and presented it to the victim's face and threatened him with injury by presenting it to his genital area. Mr. McKenzie then inflicted a stab wound to the victim's right ankle which required two stiches. At some time Mr. Tregonning went to the kitchen of the flat and came back with a saucepan of water and tipped the contents over the victim. He then hit the victim on the head with the saucepan, inflicting a serious scalp wound about 5 centimetres long. He made threats to kill the victim and dragged him to the kitchen and ordered him to sit on the floor. In dragging him to the kitchen, Mr. Tregonning inflicted further injuries on the victim. His legs were kicked apart by both accused. He was punched again and kicks directed to his genital…
Continue reading Murrell v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Tregonning, A.D. v. The Queen [1985] FCA 14
- Case
- [1985] FCA 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In considering the appropriate non-parole period, the court noted that the primary purpose of a non-parole period is to ensure that the offender serves a sufficient period of imprisonment to protect the community and to achieve the objectives of general deterrence and specific deterrence. The court also highlighted the importance of proportionality and the need to avoid excessive punishment. The court examined the relevant factors, including the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, the circumstances of the offence, and the offender's background and prospects for rehabilitation. After considering these factors, the court determined that the non-parole period imposed by the trial judge was excessive and set it aside, ordering instead that the appellant serve a non-parole period of two years.
The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant factors and principles of sentencing. The court found that the trial judge had erred in setting the non-parole period at three years, as it was not proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender. The court also noted that the appellant had shown remorse and had a good prospect of rehabilitation. The court's decision to set aside the non-parole period and impose a new one of two years was based on a balanced consideration of all the relevant factors and principles of sentencing.
The final orders of the court were to confirm the sentence of five years' imprisonment but to set aside the non-parole period of three years and order instead that the appellant serve a non-parole period of two years. This decision highlights the importance of a careful and balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account all the relevant factors and principles. It also underscores the need for courts to avoid excessive punishment and to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The sentence of five years imprisonment be confirmed.
2.
The non-parole period ordered by the trial judge be set aside and in lieu thereof the appellant serve a
non-parole period of two years.
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.