Palmer v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Palmer, sought to challenge a decision of the Court of Appeal of Queensland. The respondent was the Crown. The core of the dispute concerned the grounds upon which the applicant argued the Court of Appeal had erred in its review of a sentence imposed at first instance.

The legal issues before the High Court were primarily twofold. First, whether the Court of Appeal was precluded from considering comparative sentences or other authorities that had not been presented to the sentencing judge at first instance. Second, whether the Court of Appeal had impermissibly ascribed its own conception of the sentencing judge's reasoning process, rather than considering the actual basis upon which the sentence was imposed.

The High Court, through the submissions of counsel for the respondent, indicated that it was not persuaded by the applicant's arguments. Regarding the first issue, the respondent submitted that there was no authority supporting the proposition that a court of appeal is restricted to only considering material presented at first instance. The Court of Appeal had, in fact, referred to a relevant decision, *Corrigan*, and the respondent argued that such comparative authorities, even from other jurisdictions, could be of assistance. On the second issue, the respondent also indicated an inability to find authority to support the applicant's complaint about the Court of Appeal's approach to the sentencing judge's reasoning. The general practice in Queensland, as explained, was for the Court of Appeal to interfere with a sentence only where persuaded of a substantial error, and not to treat Attorney-General's appeals as entirely de novo considerations.