High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J. Murphy, Wilson and Brennan JJ. Neal v The Queen [1982] HCA 55
ORDER Grant application for special leave to appeal. Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Criminal Appeal set aside and in lieu thereof order that the application for special leave to appeal to that Court be refused.
The following written reasons for judgment were published:—
June 25 Gibbs C.J. The Court grants special leave to appeal, allows the appeal, and sets aside the order made by the Court of Criminal Appeal. By majority the Court orders that the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal be refused. The Court will give its reasons later. Sept. 24 Gibbs C.J. This application for special leave to appeal was brought from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant was convicted by a stipendiary magistrate at Cairns on a charge of unlawful assault, and sentenced to imprisonment for two months with hard labour. He made application for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive. When the application for leave came on before the Court of Criminal Appeal the applicant was represented by counsel and was not present in person. During the course of argument, counsel were asked by the Court whether it had power to increase the sentence and counsel for the applicant replied that he was unsure that it did. After further discussion the Court referred to s. 668E(3) of the Criminal Code Q., saying that it did have such power and intended to consider using it. The Crown had not appealed against the sentence and counsel for the Crown did not, during the course of argument before the Court of Criminal Appeal, submit that the sentence was inadequate. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court of Criminal Appeal proceeded to give judgment. Andrews S.P.J., who presided, after referring to the power given by s. 668E(3), and to the facts of the case, said that the sentence was shown to be manifestly inadequate, and that he would quash it and order the imposition of a term of imprisonment with hard labour for six months. Sheahan J. agreed. Connolly J., who also agreed, said that assuming that it was proper for the offence to be dealt with summarily, it called for the upper limit of sentence which might properly be imposed on summary trial for the offence. The order of the Court was then pronounced as follows: The order of the Court then is that, except in so far as it acts under s. 668E(3) of the Criminal Code enabling that procedure to be adopted, the application for leave to appeal is refused; the sentence imposed is quashed and, in substitution therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be imprisoned with hard labour for six months. Before pronouncing this order, the Court did not formally call on the applicant,…
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 Neal v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Neal v The Queen [1982] HCA 55
Case
[1982] HCA 55
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, Neal, had been convicted of unlawful assault by a stipendiary magistrate and sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. He applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal, on its own motion, increased the sentence to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, finding the original sentence to be manifestly inadequate.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in increasing the sentence without first formally granting leave to appeal and affording the applicant an opportunity to withdraw his appeal, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had properly exercised its discretion in increasing the sentence. Specifically, the Court examined the application of section 668E(3) of the Criminal Code (Qld), which allows the Court of Criminal Appeal to quash a sentence and pass a more severe one if warranted, and the procedural requirements surrounding its exercise. The Court also considered whether the original sentence imposed by the magistrate was appropriate, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors, including the unique circumstances of Aboriginal communities.
The High Court, by majority, found that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in its procedure. It held that the power under section 668E(3) could only be exercised after leave to appeal had been formally granted, and that the applicant should have been given an opportunity to withdraw his appeal before the Court proceeded to increase the sentence. This procedural failing meant the applicant was denied the right to abandon his appeal, a right that could have protected him from an increased sentence. The Court also noted that the power to increase a sentence of its own motion under section 668E(3) was largely redundant given the Attorney-General's right of appeal against sentence.
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and in lieu thereof, ordered that the application for leave to appeal to that Court be refused. This effectively reinstated the original sentence imposed by the magistrate. The Court reasoned that while the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to increase the sentence was procedurally flawed, remitting the matter for a fresh hearing would likely be futile, as the applicant would almost certainly abandon his appeal upon learning of the possibility of an increased sentence. The Court also indicated that it would not typically interfere with a sentence unless there was a gross violation of sentencing principles, and that the magistrate's original sentence was not demonstrably erroneous in law or principle, despite the complex social and racial factors involved.