Legal Research
Cases
R v Stacker

R v Stacker

Case [2020] ACTCA 34 30 June 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	The Queen v Stacker
Citation:	[2020] ACTCA 34
Hearing Date:	6 February 2020
DecisionDate:	30 June 2020
Before:	Mossop, Loukas-Karlsson, and Charlesworth JJ
Decision:	See [34]
Catchwords:	APPEAL – Criminal Law – Prosecution appeal against sentence – whether sentence was manifestly inadequate – aggravated burglaries – unauthorised possession of firearm – whether residual discretion not to intervene should be exercised – re-sentence
Legislation Cited:	Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) ss 14, 16, 53, 54, 205 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 6, 5412, 5606 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33, 35 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 264, 309, 310 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 97, 351 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 45, 45A, 46, 47, 48, 310(b) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.2, 11.2A, 11.3 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 28 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 37O
Cases Cited:	Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 Brown (aka Davis) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 471 CMB v Attorney General for NSW [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 Cumberland v The Queen [2020] HCA 21 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 DPP v Kotiau [2020] VSC 245 Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40 Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; 78 ALJR 616 King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423 Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 Markovic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105; 200 A Crim R 510 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 Nona v The Queen; R v Nona [2015] ACTCA 34 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57 R v Bugmy (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 322 R v Burns (1920) 20 SR (NSW) 351 R v Cheung [2010] NSWCCA 244; 203 A Crim R 398 R v Cox [1999] NSWCCA 62 R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R v Fahey, Solomon, and AD [2001] QCA 82; 1 Qld R 391 R v Hall [2017] NSWCCA 313 R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Hernando [2002] NSWCCA 489; 136 A Crim R 451 R v Hersi [2010] NSWCCA 57 R v Johnstone (No…

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 Stacker

Details

AGLC: R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34
Case: [2020] ACTCA 34
Decision Date: 30 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The prosecution appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, R v Stacker, in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent had pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary and unauthorised possession of a firearm. The core of the dispute was whether the sentence handed down by the sentencing judge was so manifestly inadequate as to warrant intervention by the appellate court.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the original sentence was demonstrably insufficient given the seriousness of the offences. It also had to consider whether, even if the sentence was found to be inadequate, the court should exercise its residual discretion not to intervene, or alternatively, to re-sentence the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had erred in his assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences and had given undue weight to certain mitigating factors. The court applied the principles of sentencing for aggravated burglary and firearm offences, emphasising the need for general deterrence and the protection of the public. The court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to re-sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and imposed a new, more severe sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [34]

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34

Most Recent Citation

R v Baker [2020] ACTSC 186

Cases Citing This Decision

Director of Public Prosecutions v Walker (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 141
Citation 1

…Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Perry (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 204
Citation 2

…6] ACTSC 380 R v Perry (a pseudonym) [2018] ACTSC 299 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Rowlands (No 2); DPP v Rowlands [2024] ACTSC 143 R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 R v Tresize (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield J, 7 September 2012) R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 R v Wen [2019] NSWD…
R v Carberry; R v Deng; Carberry v The King [2023] ACTCA 32
Citation 3

…ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122 R v Raeyers (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Refshauge J, 6 May 2014) R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24 R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8; 281 A Crim R 273 R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 Texas Co (Australasia) Ltd v Federal Commi…
Fall v Vuolo [2022] ACTSC 249
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…v UG [2020] ACTCA 8; 281 A Crim R 273 ( UG ) at [41]–[43]. The summary of principles in UG was in turn adopted by the Court in The Queen v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 at [141] (Loukas-Karlsson J, Murrell CJ and Charlesworth J agreeing at [18]). The Court in UG also referred to R v Rappel [2019] ACTCA 11 ( Rappel ) at…
R v Bower (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 388
Citation 5

…R v SP [2004] ACTCA 16 R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517…
R v Chatfield [2021] ACTSC 352
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…[2018] ACTCA 3; Williams v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 4; Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34; R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36; and R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34.…
Bennett v Daley [2021] ACTSC 159
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…ut convictions was manifestly inadequate. The principles to be applied in consideration of such a ground of appeal are not in doubt. In R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34, Loukas-Karlsson J, with whom Mossop and Charlesworth JJ agreed on this point, said at [141]: The principles applying to a Prosecution appeal on agains…
R v Ralston [2020] ACTCA 47
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…any purpose that the Court considers to be appropriate: Nicholas at [119]. The applicable principles were recently summarised in The Queen v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 at [210].…
R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…’ imprisonment is generally within the range in this Territory. This decision was expressly followed in Simonds v The Queen at [19] and R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 at [21]. In both cases, a sentence well under that range was held not to be manifestly inadequate.…
R v Hambesis [2020] ACTSC 202
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…f less gravity. Some of the relevant factors are referred to in the recent dissenting judgment of Loukas-Karlsson J, in The Queen v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 at [106]-[113].…
R v Baker [2020] ACTSC 186
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…ion and unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm. The Crown appealed successfully against the sentences imposed at first instance: R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Cumberland v The Queen [2020] HCA 21
Citation 1

…Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 471 CMB v Attorney General for NSW [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 Cumberland v The Queen [2020] HCA 21 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 DPP v Kotiau [2020] VSC 245 Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156…
DPP v Kotiau [2020] VSC 245
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…wledged that while the risk of infection remains and related restrictions are in place the consequences for prisoners are significant: DPP v Kotiau [2020] VSC 245 at [75]. Absence of visits from family and friends is an additional hardship that must be synthesised along with other matters: R v Despotovski [2020]…
Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…around Australia have made a number of statements concerning COVID-19 and sentencing. Suspension of visits make incarceration more onerous: Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81 at [166]. Prison systems remain COVID-19 free; community infection rates are trending downwards – However, it is acknowledged that while the risk of…
RC v R; R v RC [2020] NSWCCA 76
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…act of the COVID-19 pandemic could be taken into account. The appellant noted that the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal had done so in RC v R; R v RC [2020] NSWCCA 76 ( RC v R) where that Court did exercise its discretion not to interfere. It was submitted that the exercise of the discretion must be considered in the l…
R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…245 at [75]. Absence of visits from family and friends is an additional hardship that must be synthesised along with other matters: R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110. See also Brown (aka Davis) v The Queen at [48].…
DPP v Tennison [2020] VCC 343
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…The respondent also drew the Court’s attention to the recent sentence of DPP v Tennison [2020] VCC 343 at [36] in which Lyon JA stated that a custodial sentence would be more difficult as a result of the restrictions associated with the pandemic in that jurisdiction. The respondent conceded that detainees of the…
R v Stott (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…ones but that it was a necessary measure to assist in limiting risk to staff and detainees, and visitors. The respondent referred to R v Stott (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62 ( Stott (No 2 )) at [9] in which Elkaim J referred to the Notice to Visitors and acknowledged the concern regarding this risk.…
Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…itted that a similar point had been made in the context of resentencing following a successful sentencing appeal in Brown (aka Davis) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60 at [48] ( Brown (aka Davis) v The Queen ).…
Strbak v The Queen [2020] HCA 10
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…In further written submissions the Prosecution brought the recent decision of Strbak v The Queen [2020] HCA 10; 94 ALJR 374 ( Strbak ) to the attention of the Court. That decision clarifies (at [13]) that “When sentencing an offender where there is a dispute as to the facts constituting the offence, the judge sh…
R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8
Citation 10

…No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62 R v Summerfield [2018] ACTCA 20 R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 R v Winters [2019] ACTSC 245 R v Woodland [2007] NSWCCA 29 R v Y [2002] NSWCCA 191 RC v R; R v RC [2020] NSWCCA 76…
R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…The Prosecution also referred to the decisions of Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 ( Blundell ) and R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 ( Nicholas ), both of which provided guidance with respect to the appropriate discount to be applied where a plea is entered or firmly indicated during or immediately aft…
Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…The Prosecution also referred to the decisions of Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 ( Blundell ) and R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 ( Nicholas ), both of which provided guidance with respect to the appropriate discount to be applied where a plea is entered or firmly indicated during or immediately aft…
HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…As the High Court stated in HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40 at [51] where the plurality (Kiefel CJ, Bell, and Keane with whom Nettle and Edelman JJ agreed regarding the exercise of the residual discretion) stated:…
R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…It was submitted that the Court can receive this evidence for the purpose of considering the residual discretion (citing R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 at [47]; R v Summerfield [2018] ACTCA 20 at [135]; [137]). It was submitted that to the extent that r 5606(2) to r 5606(5) of the Court Procedures Rules have not been…
R v Winters [2019] ACTSC 245
Citation 15

…R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 R v Winters [2019] ACTSC 245 R v Woodland [2007] NSWCCA 29 R v Y [2002] NSWCCA 191 RC v R; R v RC [2020] NSWCCA 76 Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81 Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13 Strb…
R v Stacker [2019] ACTSC 219
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…offences and their associated facts, focusing primarily upon the Series Three aggravated robbery and the related Victim Impact Statement: R v Stacker [2019] ACTSC 219 at [1]-[7] (Primary Judgment).…
R v Johnstone (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 39
Citation 17 (Para 1)

…s provided by the Crown on appeal demonstrates a range of sentences imposed for aggravated robbery. They include the decision in R v Johnstone (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 39 ( Johnstone ) where a sentence of four years was imposed for an aggravated robbery involving a firearm after a trial.…
R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57
Citation 18 (Para 1)

…relating to Prosecution appeals against sentence are well known and have been recently restated in R v Lee [2017] ACTCA 30 at [53]-[57] and R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57 at [6] where the Court summarised the relevant authorities as follows:…
Zhao v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 38
Citation 19 (Para 1)

…owing committal but prior to the setting of a trial date and the discount was reduced from 25 per cent to 17 per cent on appeal, Zhao v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 38, in which pleas were entered 12 days before the trial commenced as a result of negotiations and a discount of 10 per cent was confirmed on appeal, and Ni…
R v Summerfield [2018] ACTCA 20
Citation 20 (Para 1)

…he Court can receive this evidence for the purpose of considering the residual discretion (citing R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 at [47]; R v Summerfield [2018] ACTCA 20 at [135]; [137]). It was submitted that to the extent that r 5606(2) to r 5606(5) of the Court Procedures Rules have not been complied with, that an…
R v NF [2018] ACTSC 165
Citation 21

…2010] NSWCCA 49 R v Kaldor [2004] NSWCCA 425 R v Lee [2017] ACTCA 30 R v MAJW [2007] NSWCCA 145; 171 A Crim R 407 R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 R v NF [2018] ACTSC 165 R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186 R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34 R v Stacker [2017…
R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…r the Series Three robbery. Notwithstanding the debate as to the scope of the relevant statutory provisions in other jurisdictions, (cf R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34 at [31]-[33], [39]-[40]) we do not consider that s 37O of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) precludes such a limited resentencing.…
Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3
Citation 23 (Para 1)

…In both written and oral submissions the Prosecution referred to Williams v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 4 and Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 ( Cranfield ) to support the proposition that a discount for a plea of guilty should be generally predictable.…
Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2
Citation 24

…tarting point for Mr Palmer was a sentence of imprisonment of six years and six months and for Mr Nicholas it was six years. (b) Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2 involved a robbery of commercial premises. A firearm was pointed at staff and in excess of $4000 was stolen. The offender had a difficult childhood,…
R v Hall [2017] NSWCCA 313
Citation 25 (Para 1)

…not be allowed to stand in order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice or perpetuate the manifest injustice (citing R v Hall [2017] NSWCCA 313; Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600).…
R v Stacker [2017] ACTSC 240
Citation 26 (Para 1)

…enced by Elkaim J for offences committed in December 2015. This included aggravated robberies of two pizza stores committed using knives: R v Stacker [2017] ACTSC 240.…
R v Lee [2017] ACTCA 30
Citation 27 (Para 1)

…The principles relating to Prosecution appeals against sentence are well known and have been recently restated in R v Lee [2017] ACTCA 30 at [53]-[57] and R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57 at [6] where the Court summarised the relevant authorities as follows:…
Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16
Citation 28

…TCA 49 Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40 Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; 78 ALJR 616 King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423 Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 Marko…
R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9
Citation 29 (Para 1)

…udge’s discretion miscarried when regard is had to the timing of the pleas to the Series One and Two offences. The Prosecution cited R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 at [80] ( Toumo’ua ) for the principle explained in Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 ( Monfries ) that aside from exceptional circumstances, a 25 per…
R v Stacker; R v Campbell [2016] ACTSC 334
Citation 30 (Para 1)

…nducted the trial in relation to his 2015 offending and observed him giving evidence. As his Honour’s reasons make clear: R v Stacker; R v Campbell [2016] ACTSC 334 at [32]-[33], he was clearly unimpressed with his evidence in that case. However, his Honour must have been able to form an impression of him which is…
Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14
Citation 31 (Para 1)

…manifestly inadequate. The Prosecution submitted that despite the observations made in Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9 and in Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14 at [65] the sentencing judge did not provide reasons for imposing a non-parole period of 50 per cent which was noted as being at the lowest end of the…
Nona v The Queen; R v Nona [2015] ACTCA 34
Citation 32

…lard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 Nona v The Queen; R v Nona [2015] ACTCA 34 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57 R v Bugmy (No 2)…
O'Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Citation 33

…ies v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 Nona v The Queen; R v Nona [2015] ACTCA 34 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57 R v Bugmy (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 322 R v Burns (1920) 20…
CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9
Citation 34 (Para 1)

…cing convicted persons: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 ( Green and Quinn ) at [1]. In CMB v Attorney General for NSW [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 ( CMB ) at [55] the High Court affirmed the following passage from Green and Quinn with respect to the limitations inherent in that purp…
R v Bugmy (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 322
Citation 35

…’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57 R v Bugmy (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 322 R v Burns (1920) 20 SR (NSW) 351 R v Cheung [2010] NSWCCA 244; 203 A Crim R 398 R v Cox [1999] NSWCCA 62 R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R v Fahey, So…
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46
Citation 36 (Para 1)

…ne and Two offences. The Prosecution cited R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 at [80] ( Toumo’ua ) for the principle explained in Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 ( Monfries ) that aside from exceptional circumstances, a 25 per cent discount is generally reserved for cases in which a plea is entered at an early stage…
R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17
Citation 37 (Para 1)

…he comments made by Gageler J in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 471 ( Bugmy ) at [51]-[54], which were adopted by this Court in R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 at [18]-[25] ( R v Ang ).…
Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9
Citation 38 (Para 1)

…ad sentence and the non-parole period was manifestly inadequate. The Prosecution submitted that despite the observations made in Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9 and in Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14 at [65] the sentencing judge did not provide reasons for imposing a non-parole period of 50 per cent which w…
Gaundar v Hogan [2014] ACTCA 4
Citation 39 (Para 1)

…In both written and oral submissions the Prosecution referred to Williams v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 4 and Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 ( Cranfield ) to support the proposition that a discount for a plea of guilty should be generally predictable.…
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Citation 40 (Para 1)

…public confidence in the administration of justice or perpetuate the manifest injustice (citing R v Hall [2017] NSWCCA 313; Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600).…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 41 (Para 1)

…and particular iii) to ground b) of the amended notice of appeal “indirectly offend” against the comments made by Gageler J in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 471 ( Bugmy ) at [51]-[54], which were adopted by this Court in R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 at [18]-[25] ( R v Ang ).…
Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13
Citation 42 (Para 1)

…rly inadequate given that the offence was objectively more serious than a burglary of commercial or industrial premises, citing Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13 at [54] ( Simonds v The Queen ) (AWS at [43]). The Prosecution nevertheless accepted “that there is a broad range of sentences imposed for offences of…
Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49
Citation 43 (Para 1)

…In relation to the burglary offence in Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 ( Fusimalohi ), the Court of Appeal outlined that (at [49]-[51]):…
Wickey v McVicar [2012] ACTCA 38
Citation 44 (Para 13)

…ry against the sentences that have been imposed in the Supreme Court. See especially Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 at [13] and Wickey v McVicar [2012] ACTCA 38 at [25]. Also decided in this context were EG v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 17 and Richards v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 10. The following decisions are also rele…
Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8
Citation 45 (Para 1)

…In Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 at [13] Penfold J with whom Burns and North JJ agreed reviewed a table of cases showing sentences which had been imposed in relation to burglary offences and stated:…
Richards v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 10
Citation 46

…8 at [13] and Wickey v McVicar [2012] ACTCA 38 at [25]. Also decided in this context were EG v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 17 and Richards v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 10. The following decisions are also relevant: R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10, Banks v The Queen [2005] ACTCA 10, R v Booth [2004] ACTCA 21 and R v Relph [2002]…
EG v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 17
Citation 47

…especially Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 at [13] and Wickey v McVicar [2012] ACTCA 38 at [25]. Also decided in this context were EG v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 17 and Richards v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 10. The following decisions are also relevant: R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10, Banks v The Queen [2005] ACTCA 10, R v Bo…
Vartuli v Ferns; Millington v Ferns [2012] ACTSC 13
Citation 48 (Para 1)

…It was submitted that Kaldor had been referred to with apparent approval by Burns J in Vartuli v Ferns; Millington v Ferns [2012] ACTSC 13 ( Vartuli ). The Prosecution submitted that Burns J’s comments apply equally to a charge which relies on the provisions of s 45A. While in Vartuli his Honour went on to conside…
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49
Citation 49 (Para 1)

…to lay down principles for the governance and guidance of courts with the duty of sentencing convicted persons: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 ( Green and Quinn ) at [1]. In CMB v Attorney General for NSW [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 ( CMB ) at [55] the High Court affirmed the foll…
Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372
Citation 50 (Para 1)

…With respect to the respondent’s age and the factors set out in Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 ( Azzopardi ), the Prosecution submitted that while the offender was that being 25 years of age he was “young but not a youth” (T 17.44-48).…

Legislation Cited

Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) 14, 16, 205, 53, 54
6 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) 10, 33, 35, 6, 7
6 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 264, 309, 310, 351, 97
6 mentions (from Para 1)
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) 5412, 5606, 6
4 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) 11.2, 11.2A, 11.3
4 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) 28
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) 37O
2 mentions (from Para 1)