SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | NC v The Queen |
Citation: | [2017] ACTCA 31 |
Hearing Date: | 9 May 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 31 July 2017 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Mossop and Wigney JJ |
Decision: | Appeal allowed. See [84]–[90]. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – armed robbery – riding in vehicle without authority – breach of good behaviour recognizance and resentence for suspended sentence – totality principle – whether sentence manifestly excessive |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 101 (repealed), 129(1) (repealed) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 243, 244 Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 (NSW) |
Cases Cited: | Blanco v The Queen [1999] NSWCCA 121; 106 A Crim R 303 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 |
Parties: | N C (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr K Archer (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 42 of 2016 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACTSC Before: Elkaim J Date of Decision: 25 August 2016 Case Title: R v NC Citation: [2016] ACTSC 245 |
THE COURT:
On 30 December 2001, the appellant entered a TAB betting store in Dickson in the ACT. He threatened a staff member with a gun and stole $36,000, before fleeing in a stolen vehicle.
On 25 May 2016, over fourteen years after he had committed the offences, the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery contrary to s 101 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) and one count of riding in a vehicle without authority contrary to s 129(1) of the Crimes Act.
The appellant was sentenced by Elkaim J on 25 August 2016. Relevantly, at the time that he committed the offences, the appellant was on a good behaviour recognizance for a separate armed robbery committed in the ACT in 1997. Miles CJ handed down a four year suspended sentence for that armed robbery on 10 May 2001, on condition that the appellant enter into the good behaviour recognizance. The sentencing judge was therefore required to re-sentence the appellant in respect of the earlier separate armed robbery.
The appellant was sentenced to a total head sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of six years. The appellant was in custody in the ACT at the time of sentencing, having been transferred…
Continue reading NC v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- NC v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 31
- Case
- [2017] ACTCA 31
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the totality principle, and whether the individual sentences were appropriate.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the aggregate sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The reasoning focused on the application of the totality principle, which requires that the total sentence imposed for multiple offences should not be disproportionate to the overall criminality of the offender. The Court considered the individual sentences in light of this principle and determined that a lesser aggregate sentence was warranted. The specific orders made by the Court are detailed in paragraphs [84] to [90] of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed. See [84]–[90].
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.