Putland v The Queen

[2003] NTCCA 3

Putland v R[2003] NTCCA 3

PARTIES: ROBERT JOHN PUTLAND

v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING FEDERAL JURISDICTION

FILE NO:CA20 of 2001 (9923435)

DELIVERED:  15 April 2003

HEARING DATES:  19 and 20 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF:  Martin CJ, Mildren & Riley JJ

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:Mr D Grace QC

Respondent:  Mr G Fisher,

Intervenor:Mr T Pauling QC with Ms S Brown-Hill for the Attorney General of the Northern Territory Intervening

Solicitors:

Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Respondent:  Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Intervenor:Solicitor General of the Northern Territory

Judgment category classification:           A

Judgment ID Number:  

Number of pages:  35

IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Putland v R[2003] NTCCA 3

No. CA20 of 2001 (9923435)

BETWEEN:

ROBERT JOHN PUTLAND

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM:      MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 15 April 2003)

THE COURT:

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to s 29D of the
   Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and two counts each of breaching s 266(1) and
   s 269(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The maximum penalty for each offence contrary to s 29D of the Crimes Act is ten years imprisonment and the maximum penalty for each bankruptcy offence is three years imprisonment.

2. The learned sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment and ordered that the appellant be released after serving twelve months upon entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for three years.

3. The grounds of the appeal are that:

   1.the aggregate term of imprisonment was manifestly excessive;

   2.the unsuspended period was manifestly excessive;

   3.the learned sentencing judge erred in failing to order the applicant’s immediate release; and

   4.the learned sentencing judge did not have power to impose an aggregate term of imprisonment thereby making the order of imprisonment a nullity.

4. Before dealing with the other grounds of appeal, it is convenient to deal with ground 4.

   Did the learned sentencing judge have power to impose an aggregate sentence?

5. The appellant argues that the learned sentencing judge had no power to impose an aggregate sentence for the following reasons:

   1.Subject to the applicability of s 4K of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (the Act) in relation to summary criminal proceedings, Part 1B of the Act impliedly excludes aggregate sentencing by superior courts upon conviction for two or more federal offences.

   2.Alternatively, it was put that s 4K alone, or together with the provisions within Part 1B, as supplemented by Commonwealth common law, impliedly excludes aggregate sentencing by superior courts.

   3.That s 52 of the Sentencing Act (NT) enabling an aggregate sentence to be imposed had no application because that provision was not "picked up" by s 68 or s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

   4.Alternatively, it was argued that if s 52 of the Sentencing Act…