SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | R v Sharp |
Citation: | [2019] ACTCA 7 |
Hearing Date: | 15 February 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 15 February 2019 |
ReasonsDate: | 8 April 2019 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Mossop and Charlesworth JJ |
Decision: | Appeal allowed; offender resentenced. See [6]. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – unlawful confinement – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – no appeal from appeals imposed on two co-offenders – further co-offender resentenced on appeal – whether interference with the appellant’s sentence would create unjustified parity between sentences imposed on co-offenders – appeal allowed – appellant resentenced |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 32, 34 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37E |
Cases Cited: | Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 |
Parties: | The Queen (Appellant) Cameron Sharp (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr Williams (Appellant) Mr Doil (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (Appellant) Ben Aulich and Associates (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 59 of 2018 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Loukas-Karlsson J Date of Decision: 17 October 2018 Case Title: R v Sharp Citation: [2018] ACTSC 286 |
THE COURT
Introduction
The respondent, Mr Cameron Sharp, pleaded guilty to two offences committed on and around 8 April 2017. Together with four co-offenders, Mr Sharp duct taped Mr Andrew Peisley (the victim) to a chair. They threatened, assaulted and interrogated him over a period of about three hours.
On 17 October 2018, Mr Sharp was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, comprised of the following individual head sentences, cumulative as to one month:
(a)for an offence of unlawful confinement in contravention of s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (charge CC2017/4977), 14 months imprisonment, commencing on 9 May 2018 and ending on 8 July 2019;
(b)for an offence of making a demand accompanied by a threat in contravention of s 32(2)(a) of the Crimes Act (charge XO2017/31239), 14 months imprisonment commencing on 9 June 2018 and ending on 8 August 2019.
The sentencing judge fixed a non-parole period of 10 months, being 66 percent of the head sentence.
The Crown appealed…
Continue reading R v Sharp
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Sharp [2019] ACTCA 7
- Case
- [2019] ACTCA 7
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the original sentence imposed on the respondent was demonstrably inadequate, considering the circumstances of the offence and the sentences imposed on co-offenders. It also had to consider the principle of parity in sentencing and whether any disparity between the respondent's sentence and those of his co-offenders was justified.
The court allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. In its reasoning, the court applied the principles of sentencing for unlawful confinement, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence. Crucially, the court considered the sentences imposed on the respondent's co-offenders and determined that the disparity between those sentences and the respondent's original sentence was unjustified. The court then resentenced the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed; offender resentenced. See [6].
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.