Strong v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Robert Strong against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. Strong had been convicted of stalking and intimidation and subsequently pronounced a habitual criminal under the *Habitual Criminals Act 1957* (NSW), leading to an additional concurrent term of imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeal had overturned the sentences for the primary offences and resentenced Strong, but it also upheld the pronouncement of him as a habitual criminal.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the entire sentence must be re-determined when one component of it has miscarried, whether an appellate court is required to determine for itself whether to pronounce an appellant a habitual criminal, and if so, whether it exercises its own jurisdiction in doing so. The court also considered whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had correctly upheld the sentencing judge's pronouncement and whether its approach conformed to the "scrupulously thorough" procedures mandated by the *Habitual Criminals Act* for orders of preventative detention.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that consistency with established authority required the "regular and scrupulously thorough" observance of the procedures mandated by statutes authorising preventive punishment for repeat offenders. The Court held that the application of the *Habitual Criminals Act* should be considered afresh on new materials that were available. The Court's reasoning emphasised the importance of adhering strictly to the statutory requirements for imposing preventative detention, particularly when new evidence regarding the appellant's mental condition had emerged.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed.