Stone v The Queen; Stone v The Queen

These proceedings concerned applications for special leave to appeal by Clive Stone and Anthony Stone against decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The applicants sought to overturn the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to increase their sentences, which had been imposed by the sentencing judge. The Crown had appealed the original sentences, arguing that they were too lenient.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in its sentencing determination by increasing the sentences imposed on the applicants. This involved a consideration of the principles governing sentencing for murder in Victoria at the time, particularly in light of amendments to section 3 of the Crimes Act and the application of remissions to sentences. The applicants contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal had committed a gross violation of sentencing principles.

The applicants argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to increase their sentences was based on a misinterpretation of sentencing law. Specifically, they submitted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in adopting the reasoning of *Elder's case* and finding that the sentencing judge had fallen into error in *Halar's case*. The sentencing judge had taken into account remissions applicable to the maximum sentence, following *Yates' case*, a decision of the Full Bench of the Victorian Supreme Court, rather than the approach taken in *Elder's case*. The applicants highlighted that the law regarding remissions for murder sentences had since changed, but argued that this did not justify the retrospective application of a different sentencing approach by the Court of Criminal Appeal.