High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J.(1), Mason(1), Brennan(1), Deane(1) and Dawson(1) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Criminal Law (A.C.T.) - Sentence - Reduction or remission of sentence - Australian Capital Territory - "Territory offender" - Imprisonment in New South Wales - Operation of Probation and Parole Act 1983 (N.S.W.) - Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 (Cth), s. 19 - Prisoners (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1968 (Cth), s. 5(3).
HEARING
1985, May 14; June 18. 18:6:1985 APPLICATION for special leave to appeal from the Federal Court of Australia.
DECISION
June 18. THE COURT delivered the following written judgment:- This is an application by the Crown for special leave to appeal from a Blackburn J. dissenting) which allowed an appeal by the respondent to the extent of reducing the non-parole period fixed by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Gallop J.) when imposing a sentence of imprisonment on the respondent from eight years six months to five years six months. (at p491)
2. The respondent was convicted on two charges - wounding one Isakka with intent to murder him and maliciously wounding one Mustonen with intent thereby to do him grievous bodily harm. On 1 June 1984 Gallop J. sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment with hard labour on the first charge and to three years' imprisonment with hard labour on the second charge, the sentences to be concurrent, and directed that there be a period of eight years six months during which he would not be eligible for parole. The respondent appealed against the sentence and the non-parole period. The appeal against the sentence, which was dismissed, was simply on the ground that it was excessive. However, the appeal against the non-parole period was brought on the ground that Gallop J. had erred in law in having regard to reductions in the non-parole period to which it was thought that the respondent might become entitled under the provisions of the Probation and Parole Act 1983 (N.S.W.) ("the N.S.W. Parole Act") and the Regulations made under that Act, and in increasing the length of the non-parole period to counteract the effect of those provisions. There is nothing in the reasons given by Gallop J. when he imposed sentence that suggests that he did proceed in that way. However, two days before the respondent was sentenced, Gallop J. had in another case (Reg. v. Raspovic Supreme Court of the A.C.T.; 30 May 1984; Unreported.) expressed the view that since an offender sentenced in the Australian Capital Territory to imprisonment must serve the sentence in New South Wales, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory,…
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 R v Paivinen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Paivinen [1985] HCA 39
Case
[1985] HCA 39
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *R v Paivinen* concerned an appeal by the applicant, Paivinen, against his conviction for murder. The applicant had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria and sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal to the Court of Appeal of Victoria raised questions regarding the fairness of the trial and the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, whether the summing up to the jury was adequate, and whether the verdict of the jury was unsafe or unsatisfactory given the evidence. Specifically, the court considered the admissibility of evidence relating to the applicant's prior convictions and the judge's directions to the jury concerning the use of that evidence. The court also examined whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal analysed the relevant evidence and the judge's directions in detail. The court found that while there were some arguable points regarding the admission of evidence, the overall conduct of the trial and the summing up were not so flawed as to render the conviction unsafe. The court applied established principles of criminal law concerning the admissibility of evidence, the role of the jury, and the test for an unsafe or unsatisfactory verdict. The court concluded that the jury, properly directed, was entitled to reach the verdict it did.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against his conviction.