R v Sheppard

The appellant, Sheppard, was convicted of uttering three cheques and making four false pretences. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each of the uttering counts and five years on each of the false pretences counts, with the sentences to run concurrently with each other but cumulatively, making an effective sentence of eight years. Sheppard appealed the sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge had breached section 16 of the Criminal Code by imposing a cumulative sentence, and that the acts in question constituted one transaction rather than separate offences. He also argued that the court could not increase a sentence in the absence of an appeal by the Attorney-General.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed breached section 16 of the Criminal Code by imposing a cumulative sentence, which was not permitted under the Act. The court also found that the acts in question constituted one transaction, rather than separate offences. The court held that the imposition of a cumulative sentence was not permissible in this case, and that the sentence should be reconsidered. The court further found that the court could not increase a sentence in the absence of an appeal by the Attorney-General, and that the case of Neal was distinguishable. The court granted leave to appeal against sentence, set aside the order made below, and imposed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment on each of counts 1, 3, and 6, to run concurrently, and a conviction but no further punishment on counts 2, 4, 5, and 7. The court also made several other orders, including that Sheppard be eligible to apply for parole after serving three years of his sentence, that the period of 188 days he had spent in pre-sentence custody be counted as time already served, and that he pay compensation to the National Australia Bank in the sum of $437,850.