Ross v The Queen

In the matter of Ross versus The Queen, the appellant, Ross, was convicted of aggravated burglary and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The dispute centred on the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with Ross contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge failed to properly consider mitigating factors such as his acquired brain injury and psychological conditions. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues in the appeal involved whether the trial judge was bound to accept the expert opinion regarding Ross's acquired brain injury and depression, and whether the judge was required to warn counsel that the opinion might not be accepted. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the mitigating circumstances. The appeal also questioned whether the trial judge breached natural justice by not independently verifying the facts upon which the psychologist's report was based.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was not obliged to accept the expert opinion without independent verification of the facts. However, this did not constitute a breach of natural justice as there was no inherent risk of rejection of the report. The court found that the judge was not bound to accept the expert opinion, and it was not required to warn counsel that the opinion might be rejected. Furthermore, the sentence was deemed not manifestly excessive, considering all the circumstances of the case, including Ross’s intoxication at the time of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, applying the principles established in Hogarth v The Queen and Humphries v The Queen.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the original sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.