O'Reilly v The Queen

O'Reilly appealed against his sentence for an offence under the *Criminal Code 1983* (NT). The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, comprising Riley CJ, Blokland and Hiley JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether alleged errors in the agreed facts presented at the sentencing hearing were significant enough to warrant a review of the sentence imposed. Specifically, the appellant contended that these factual inaccuracies rendered the sentence demonstrably unjust.

The Court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, particularly where errors in agreed facts are raised. Applying the test established in cases such as *Damaso v The Queen* and *McDonald v The Queen*, the Court determined that the alleged errors did not alter the objective seriousness of the offence or the overall assessment of the appropriate penalty. The Court found that the sentencing judge had correctly considered the relevant factors and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or unjust. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.