Legal Research
Cases
Steer v The Queen

Steer v The Queen

Case [2000] FCA 462 11 April 2000

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Manifestly Inadequate Sentence

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Steer v The Queen [2000] FCA 462
Criminal Law - appeal against sentence - principles governing Crown appeal - whether sentence manifestly inadequate.
Criminal Law - appeal against sentences - whether disparity between sentences imposed on co-offenders - whether sentence imposed on one offender manifestly inadequate, and on another manifestly excessive.
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 429A, 449 and 449A
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 cited
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 applied
The Queen v Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306 referred to
Watson v The Queen [2000] FCA 186 referred to
R v Radloff (1996) 6 Tas R 99 referred to
Ingev The Queen [1999] 166 ALR 312 applied
R vKalajzich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41 discussed
Crofts (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Grove J, 6 December 1996) cited
King (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Grove J, 6 December 1996) referred to
R v Isaacs (1997) 90 A Crim R 587 cited
R v Storey (1998) 1 VR 359 followed
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 166 ALR 330 cited
Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521 applied
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 followed
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 applied
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 cited
Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227 referred to
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 referred to
R v Clarke [1996] 2 VR 520 referred to
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 cited
R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561 cited
DPP v Carter [1998] 1 VR 601 cited
DPP v Christie [1999] VSCA 171 applied
R v Tait & Bartley (1979) 24 ALR referred to
R v Hayes (1987) 29 A Crim R 452 referred to
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 referred to
R v D’Ortenzio [1961] VR 432 applied
R v Charles [1979] VR 8 referred to
R v Cox (1991) 55 A Crim R 396 referred to
R v Reardon (1996) 89 A Crim R 180 referred to
R v Tisalandis [1982] 2 NSWLR 430 applied
Matters No. AG 25 of 1998, AG 55 of 1998, AG 64 of 1998 and AG 118 of 1998
BARRY STEER v THE QUEEN, THE QUEEN v KATHY MARIE McFIE, JOHN TERENCE CONWAY v THE QUEEN and DANIEL SCOTT WILLIAMS v THE QUEEN
MILES, von DOUSSA & WEINBERG JJ
CANBERRA
DATE 11 APRIL 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Matter No. AG 25 of 1998
BETWEEN:
BARRY STEER
           Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN
           Respondent

Matter No. AG 55 of 1998
BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
           Appellant

AND: KATHY MARIE McFIE
           Respondent

Matter No. AG 64 of 1998
BETWEEN:
JOHN TERENCE CONWAY
           Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN
           Respondent

Matter No. AG 118 of 1998
BETWEEN:
DANIEL SCOTT WILLIAMS
           Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN
           Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, von DOUSSA & WEINBERG JJ

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 Steer v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Steer v The Queen [2000] FCA 462
Case: [2000] FCA 462
Decision Date: 11 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia considered appeals against sentences imposed on four individuals involved in the murder of Ulrike Conway. The appeals were consolidated and heard together, with the Crown also appealing against the sentence of one of the defendants, Kathy Marie McFie. The central issue in the appeals was whether the disparity in sentences between the various defendants gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance. The Court had to determine whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate or excessive, and whether there was any inconsistency in sentencing standards.

The Court found that the appeals against the sentences of Barry Steer, John Terence Conway, and Daniel Scott Williams should be dismissed. The Court concluded that the sentencing judges had appropriately considered the culpability of each offender and the principle of parity in sentencing co-offenders. The Court also found that the sentence imposed on McFie was manifestly inadequate and allowed the Crown's appeal against her sentence. The Court re-sentenced McFie to twenty-two years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of fourteen years. The Court held that the sentences of the other three defendants should not be reduced, as it would result in four inappropriately low sentences instead of one manifestly inadequate sentence. The Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to maintain adequate standards of punishment for crime.

Orders