Afiouny v The Queen
[2017] NSWCCA 23
Para 1
…Recently, in Afiouny v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 23 at [46]–[47], Hoeben CJ at CL (Latham and Price JJ agreeing) emphasised that the deterrent and punitive effects of a sentence should be reflected both in the head sentence and in the minimum term. Further, the need for rehabilitation had to be balanced against the o…
Barbieri v R
[2016] NSWCCA 295
Para 1
…ained to determine whether they may have a defence of mental impairment: Haines v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 90; Shine at [114]. In Barbieri v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 295 ( Barbieri ) at [95], Simpson AJ said that s 22 was “susceptible of a less rigid interpretation than may appear to be derived from decisions such as…
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Vinod Thomas Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Leung Hang Wu
[2016] VSCA 237
Para 1
…hat, on this point, Basten JA’s decision was “clearly wrong”: at [131]. But in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237, the Victorian Court of Appeal concluded that s 16A(2)(g) does permit a discount for the utilitarian value of a plea to a Commonwealth offence. Further, in Barbaro v The Que…
Shine v R
[2016] NSWCCA 149
Para 1
…he utilitarian value is reduced: see, for example, R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56; 160 A Crim R 510 at [11]; Borkowski at [32]; and Shine v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 149 ( Shine ) at [111].…
R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios
[2016] NSWCCA 147
Para 1
…ry the sentence”. The decisions include: R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 ( Baker ); R v Lachlan [2015] NSWCCA 178; and R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147 ( Hatzisavvas ). In Hatzisavvas , Hoeben CJ at CL confirmed that, under s 5D Criminal Appeal Act , the Court retains a residual discretion to decline to…
R v Toumo'ua; R v Schaaf
[2016] ACTSC 163
…Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Justice Penfold Date of Decision: 21 June 2016 Case Title: R v Toumo’ua; R v Schaaf Citation: [2016] ACTSC 163…
Haines v R
[2016] NSWCCA 90
Para 1
…as been determined and before expert evidence has been obtained to determine whether they may have a defence of mental impairment: Haines v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 90; Shine at [114]. In Barbieri v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 295 ( Barbieri ) at [95], Simpson AJ said that s 22 was “susceptible of a less rigid interpret…
Millard v The Queen
[2016] ACTCA 14
…The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601 Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; 154 CLR 606 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14 Milat v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 29 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 R v Allred [2015] ACTSC 327 R v Baker [2…
R v Harrington
[2016] ACTCA 10
Para 1
…ned that Tyler “represents the applicable law in this Court”: at [5]. This Court considered Basten JA’s reasoning in R v Harrington [2016] ACTCA 10; 11 ACTLR 215 ( Harrington ), and Refshauge ACJ and Gilmour J opined that, on this point, Basten JA’s decision was “clearly wrong”: at [131]. But in Director of Public…
R v Saleh
[2015] NSWCCA 299
Para 1
…d that, when sentencing for a Commonwealth offence, there should be no discount for utilitarian value. Notwithstanding Gow , in R v Saleh [2015] NSWCCA 299, Beech-Jones J opined that Tyler “represents the applicable law in this Court”: at [5]. This Court considered Basten JA’s reasoning in R v Harrington [2016] ACTC…
Thomson v R
[2015] ACTCA 16
Para 1
…against sentence should be a rarity, brought for the purpose of laying down principles for the general governance and guidance of courts: Thomson v R [2015] ACTCA 16 at [68] per Murrell CJ and Ross J, citing CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 317 ALR 308; R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53; 297 FLR 359 at [54]–[60]…
R v Allred
[2015] ACTSC 327
Para 1
…such as those in question, sentencing purposes of general deterrence and denunciation should have been reflected in more severe sentences: R v Allred [2015] ACTSC 327 at [40]–[41]; R v Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328 at 330.…
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gow
[2015] NSWCCA 208
Para 1
…boration) in the context of the principle of equal justice under the law is controversial. In Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gow [2015] NSWCCA 208; 298 FLR 397 ( Gow ), Basten JA departed from NSW Court of Criminal Appeal decisions such as Tyler v The Queen; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247; 173 A Crim R 458…
R v Lachlan
[2015] NSWCCA 178
Para 1
…n appeal, the appellate court “may in its discretion vary the sentence”. The decisions include: R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 ( Baker ); R v Lachlan [2015] NSWCCA 178; and R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147 ( Hatzisavvas ). In Hatzisavvas , Hoeben CJ at CL confirmed that, under s 5D Criminal Appeal Act ,…
CMB v Attorney-General (NSW)
[2015] HCA 9
Para 1
…for the general governance and guidance of courts: Thomson v R [2015] ACTCA 16 at [68] per Murrell CJ and Ross J, citing CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 317 ALR 308; R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53; 297 FLR 359 at [54]–[60].…
R v Duffy
[2014] ACTCA 53
Para 1
…ce of courts: Thomson v R [2015] ACTCA 16 at [68] per Murrell CJ and Ross J, citing CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 317 ALR 308; R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53; 297 FLR 359 at [54]–[60].…
Monfries v The Queen
[2014] ACTCA 46
Para 1
…In Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 ( Monfries ) at [44], Murrell CJ (with whom Burns and Ross JJ agreed on this point) noted that the ACT courts have adopted an approach to s 35 discounts that is very similar to the NSW Thomson approach to discounts for utilitarian value and said at [47]:…
Kentwell v The Queen
[2014] HCA 37
Para 1
…th re-sentencing) and impose a sentence that constitutes adequate punishment. A related consequence is that, as explained in Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601 ( Kentwell ), the Court should re-sentence by exercising the sentencing discretion afresh, rather than merely confirming the original senten…
Taylor v The Queen
[2014] ACTCA 9
Para 1
…In Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9 at [19], this Court summarised the proper approach to fixing a nonparole period as follows:…
Milat v R; Klein v R
[2014] NSWCCA 29
Para 1
…In Milat v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 29, the Court of Appeal found no error where the sentencing judge had allowed no discount for an early plea of guilty because the offender posed a substantial risk of violent re-offending and was a serious potential danger to the community. At [84], R A Hulme J (with whom Bathurst…
Barbaro v The Queen
[2014] HCA 2
Para 1
…A(2)(g) does permit a discount for the utilitarian value of a plea to a Commonwealth offence. Further, in Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 at [31], the plurality (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ) suggested that the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty was relevant, although the comment was obi…
Drayton v The Queen
[2013] ACTCA 44
…limited prospects of rehabilitation, the Court declined to disturb a non-parole period that was 70% of the total sentence: Drayton v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 44. However, Drayton and other cases decided in the ACT should not be used to fix an “available range” for non-parole periods.…
Coggan v The Queen
[2013] ACTCA 49
Para 1
…its associated utilitarian value, is unclear. The Explanatory Statement does not elaborate on the purpose of including s 35(4). In Coggan v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 49 at [20], the Court explained that even an overwhelming prosecution case required an enormous amount of work and it was not unknown for an apparently…
R v Chatfield
[2012] ACTCA 32
Para 1
…between re-sentencing in the case of a successful prosecution appeal and re-sentencing in the case of a successful offender appeal. In R v Chatfield [2012] ACTCA 32, this Court held that s 7(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act has an effect that is similar to s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). One consequence is that…
Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
[2012] HCA 1
Para 1
…ct that is similar to s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). One consequence is that, as the High Court held in Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] HCA 1; 244 CLR 638, when the issue of re-sentencing arises following a successful prosecution appeal, the Court must disregard any “principle” of double je…
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen
[2011] HCA 49
Para 1
…dual discretion to decline to interfere with the sentence even if it is erroneously lenient: at [70], citing Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 at [1] ( Green ). In Green , the High Court considered the proper approach to a Crown appeal in NSW, where s 5D applies. At [1]–[2] and [42]…
R v Robert Borkowski
[2009] NSWCCA 102
Para 1
…In R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1 ( Borkowski ), Howie J (McClellan CJ at CL and Simpson J agreeing) restated the principles applicable to discounts in New South Wales.…
R v Burton
[2008] NSWCCA 128
Para 1
…matters of general public importance and is not designed “to mollify the victim”: R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; 134 A Crim R174 at [37]; R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128 at [102].…
Tyler v R; R v Chalmers
[2007] NSWCCA 247
Para 1
…] NSWCCA 208; 298 FLR 397 ( Gow ), Basten JA departed from NSW Court of Criminal Appeal decisions such as Tyler v The Queen; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247; 173 A Crim R 458 ( Tyler ) which suggested that, when sentencing for a Commonwealth offence, there should be no discount for utilitarian value. Notwithstanding…
R v Stambolis
[2006] NSWCCA 56
Para 1
…rrelevant because the mere fact that a plea of guilty is not forthcoming means that the utilitarian value is reduced: see, for example, R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56; 160 A Crim R 510 at [11]; Borkowski at [32]; and Shine v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 149 ( Shine ) at [111].…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25
Para 1
…Court to infer that the primary judge had failed to pay sufficient attention to the maximum penalty in the manner explained in Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at 372. The appellant observed that the offences of burglary and theft had involved planning, serious breaches of trust by an employee a…
R v Sutton
[2004] NSWCCA 225
Para 1
…f the prosecution case is not taken into account when determining the sentencing discount, and is only relevant to contrition and remorse: R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225 at [12]. In Thomson , the Court decided that, while the strength of the prosecution case had no bearing on the utilitarian value of the plea of guilt…
R v El-Andouri
[2004] NSWCCA 178
Para 1
…in the starting point for the sentence and, of itself, is not a reason to refuse a discount for the utilitarian value of the plea: R v El- Andouri [2004] NSWCCA 178 at [35].…
R v Palu
[2002] NSWCCA 381
Para 1
…giveness. This is because sentencing is concerned with matters of general public importance and is not designed “to mollify the victim”: R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; 134 A Crim R174 at [37]; R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128 at [102].…
Dinsdale v The Queen
[2000] HCA 54
Para 1
…nadequacy only where the sentence is manifestly unreasonable or plainly unjust: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504–505; Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 at [6].…
Morawski v State Rail Authority
[2000] NSWCCA 309
Para 1
…he NSW Sentencing Act is firmly focused on rewarding offenders for the utilitarian value of pleas of guilty. In the guideline decision of R v Thomson [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383 ( Thomson ) at [125] and [135], Spigelman CJ (with whom Wood CJ at CL, Foster AJA, Grove and James JJ agreed) acknowledged the signific…
R v Thomson; R v Houlton
[2000] NSWCCA 383
Para 1
…ct is firmly focused on rewarding offenders for the utilitarian value of pleas of guilty. In the guideline decision of R v Thomson [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383 ( Thomson ) at [125] and [135], Spigelman CJ (with whom Wood CJ at CL, Foster AJA, Grove and James JJ agreed) acknowledged the significant public int…
R v Baker
[2000] NSWCCA 85
Para 1
…l Act ) , which provides that, on a Crown appeal, the appellate court “may in its discretion vary the sentence”. The decisions include: R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 ( Baker ); R v Lachlan [2015] NSWCCA 178; and R v Hatzisavvas; R v Lopez-Rios [2016] NSWCCA 147 ( Hatzisavvas ). In Hatzisavvas , Hoeben CJ at CL confirm…
Inge v The Queen
[1999] HCA 55
…to be served by way of non-parole period is a matter for judicial discretion and cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula: Inge v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 295 ( Inge ) per Kirby J at 316. In fixing the relationship between the term of imprisonment and the non-parole period, a sentencing judge has a wide discretio…
Bugmy v The Queen
[1990] HCA 18
…4) 131 CLR 623 at 627 – 628, Deakin v The Queen (1984) 11 A Crim R 88 at 89, Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 ( Lowe ) at 615, Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 ( Bugmy ) at 536. 2. An offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are important to the fixing of the non-parole period. Generally, the perceived prospects…
Deakin v The Queen
[1984] HCA 31
…tive circumstances. It is the minimum period of imprisonment that justice requires to be served: Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 at 627 – 628, Deakin v The Queen (1984) 11 A Crim R 88 at 89, Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 ( Lowe ) at 615, Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 ( Bugmy ) at 536. 2. An offender’s pros…
Power v The Queen
[1974] HCA 26
…05] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14 Milat v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 29 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 R v Allred [2015] ACTSC 327 R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1 R v Chatfield [20…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40
Para 1
…l uphold a complaint of manifest excess or manifest inadequacy only where the sentence is manifestly unreasonable or plainly unjust: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504–505; Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 at [6].…
Lowe v R
[1984] HCA 46
…justice requires to be served: Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 at 627 – 628, Deakin v The Queen (1984) 11 A Crim R 88 at 89, Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 ( Lowe ) at 615, Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 ( Bugmy ) at 536. 2. An offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are important to the fixing of the…
House v The King
63 WN 176
Para 1
…pellate court will uphold a complaint of manifest excess or manifest inadequacy only where the sentence is manifestly unreasonable or plainly unjust: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504–505; Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 at [6].…