The Queen v Hall, P.G

Criminal larr - Appeal by the Crown agalnst adequacy of

sentence - Principles upon whlch appellate court will

intervene to alter trial judge's sentence - Considerations

relevant to the imposltlon of sentence.

Procedure at trial - Irregular~ty

- Plea of guilty to two

coullts - Re-arraigmnent on flrst count after trial had

commenced - Change of plea on flrst count to guilty"--

Leave to enter nolle prosequi on second count - Whether

accused in the charge of the jury - Oral leave to arraign

on substituted second count - Appropriateness or otherwise of

flling a nolle prosequi in relation to the original second

count - Whether authority to decline to prosecute available.

-	R. v. IL4LL
KO. NTG 11 of 1979

DISTRICT R%ISTRY

GENlilUL 1IIVlSIO:I

. i

O R D E R

JUXES IL4KIlTG ORDl3:	Toohey, Gallop ?C Lockhart J.J.	- .
DATZ OF O D E %	28 June 1979

!FEE COURT CRDSS *%KC:*	.
.

5 e appeal a@nst

the sentence ingosod by the Supreme Court

, . a

t h e h'orthern Ter r i to ry of

k & t r a l i a

upon

the respoodent's

being convicted of unlawfully and nal ic iously s e t t i w f i r e t o

a b u i l i i i w contrary t o sec t ion 86 of

t h e Criminal Law

Consolidation Act and Ordinance be allowed a d

t h a t i n

subs t i t u t ion f o r the s a i d sentence the respondent

imprisoned f o r 2 period of f o u r years b d ten months with

a non-par012 geriod of i;.,ro years 2nd six months.

The appeal wrist the sentence imgosed by t'Ie S u p r e ~ e

Court

of t h e Northern Ter r i to ry of

Australia upon the resoondent's

being convicted of unlawful and m l i c i o u s damlge by night

contrzry t o sec t ion 129 of t h e Criminal L2.r Consolidation

Act be adjo-ed

s i ~ e

die.

m TRE FED-

COrnT OF rnTR4ISA

NORTHW.1

T m T O R Y OF AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT FEGISTRY

No. NTG 11 of 1979

D r n S I O N

Bmm:

m Qnmi

(~ppellant)

-	AND: PEIILI.JP GRAEAT+l HALL (~espondent)

O R D E R

JUXES IL4KIlTG ORDEF(:	Toohey, Gallop & Lockhat J.J.
DATE OF ORDEB:	28 June 1979
IIHWE TfiE:	Darwin

THE COURT ORDm W:

1. The appeal aenst the sentence imposad by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia upon the respondent's - being convicted of unlawfully and naliciously setting fire to

a building contrary to section 86 of the Criminal Law

Consolidation Act and Ordinance be allowed and that in substitution for the said sentence the respondent be imprisoned for a period of four years and ten months with

a non-par012 neriod of two years and six months.

2. The appeal wrist the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia upon the respondent's being convicted of unlawful and malicious dunage by night

contrary to section 129 of the Criminal Law Consolidation

Act be adjourned sine die.

Date Ehtered:

9 F

19,

XliORY

DEPUTY DISTRICT mISTRAR

ORDER

I N THE FEDERAL*COUIC~ OF AIJSTRALIA	)
)

NORTIIERN	T E R R I T O R Y	D I S T R I C T R X G I S T R Y	)	No.	NTG	11	of	1 9 7 9
1

GENERAL

D I V I S I O N

A P P E A L f r o m the

SUPREME C0UI:T

O F

T H E

NOR'SHEKN

T E R R I T O R Y

O F

A U S T R A L I A

BETWEEN:

'THE ((UEEN

A p p e l l a n t

AND :

P H I L L I P GRAFIS.1

HALL

R e s p o n d e n t

CORAPI:

TOOHZY, . GALLOP & 'LOCKHART

JJ .

Thursday 28 June 1979

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TOOHEY J. :

I agree w i t h the o rdc r s proposed by

Lockhart J. .and w i t h h i s reasons

f o r j u d g m e n t .

1N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	No. NTG 11 o f )!X9
GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:

PHILLIP GRAHAM HALL

Respondent

CORSI:

TOOHEY, GALLOP & LOCKHART JJ S

Thursday 28 June 1973

REASONS FOR JUDGbENT

LOCKHART J.

This is an appeal against sentence impodl\d

the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory followitit( (,ho

conviction of the respondent on two charges: first, lhat

3 -

he unlawfully and maliciously set fire to a building fi)nntrary

td S. 86 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and 618ll"a"ce

and secondly that he committed unlawful and malicioUfi 'lama6e

in the night contrary to S. 129 thereof.

On 20 April 1979 the learned sentencing judf\fi

scntcnccd thc respondent on the first charge to foiri' \'pOrs and ten months imprisonment, with a non-parole l Of two years, and on the second charge to two years'

inlplsonment with a non-parole period of one year and

ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. He

further ordered that the respondent be released from

custody on 2 July 1979 on the. following conditions:-

That he enter into a bond in his own

recognizance in the sum of $500.00 to be	I
of good behaviour for a period of three years ;
2. That he place himself under the supervision
of a probation offlcer during the said period of three years and obey the directions of the sald probation officer as to employ~~~ent and place of living and that he report to the said probation. officer on 2 July 1979 and obey his directions as to further reporting and that he subject himself to such medlcal psychiatric or

psycholog~cal

treatment as may from time to

time be directed by his said probation officer

and those from time to time in charge of his

treatment; and

3. That he pay by way of restitution, the sum

of $3,800.00 by instalments as follows:-

(i) $300.00 by 20 December 1979;

(ii) $1,000.00 by 20 December 1980;

(iii) $1,500.00 by 20 December 1981; and

(iv) $1,000.00

by 30 June 1982.

The Crown appeals against this sentence, submitting

.ha& the sentence is so inadequate as to manifest an error in principle on the part of the learned sentencing judge. It is not submitted that any error appears on the face of'his

Hon~ar's remarks; but it is said that the sentence imposed falls so far short of the range of sentences which would be

dlctnted by the exercise of sound judicial discretion that this court should intervene and Impose a sentence which is

appropriate in the circumstances.

The respondent-lived at No. 1 Lambell Terrace

Darwin close to the Darwin Hospltal and the Red Cross

Centre. The house was owned by a Miss Fleper.

She

occupied the house together with the respondent and a Mr.

T. J. Findlay. Each person occupied a separate bedroom

and shared facilities in common.

The respondent had been living at those premises

for about two weeks before the events of 20 November 1978.

For about six or seven months before then, he had

been working on a voluntary basis with the Red Cross doing

jobs such as Meals On Wheels.

On 17 November 1978, three

days before the respondent set the fires which led to his

conviction, he telephoned the Red Cross Centre and enquired

whether he could purchase some vases from the Red Cross

Opportunity Shop whlch formed part of the Centre.

He enquire(

as to what type of items were kept in the shop and was told

that there was clothing, kitchenware, bedding and mattresses.	!
!
Or. Sunday 19 November 1978 the respondent and Mr. Findlay together with one other person arranged to dine at
a restaurant in Darwin called "Melissa's Restaurant" which
was owned by the same lady who owned No. 1 Lambell Terrace, Darwin namely Miss Fleper. The respondent arrived at Melissa's Restaurant at about 6.30 p.m. and was joined by

his two dinner companions about an hour later.

He was not

intoxicated when he arrived at the restaurant, but during the

course of the evening the three people consumed a few drinks

before dlnner, four bottles of wine with dinner and possibly

some beer also.

The three people left the restaurant somewhere

between 12.15 and 12.45 a.m. the respondent being somewhat

intoxicated. He was driven back to his home by Mr. Findlays

who went to bed about flve minutes later. Miss Fleper left

the restaurant about half an hour after the respondent did

and she too went home, taking with her six bottles of Crown

Lager beer.

Miss Fleper and the respondent sat up and tallced

till about 3 .00 a-m. during which time the respondent drank two cans of beer and Miss Fleper one bottle of Crown Lager.

At about 3 .00 a.m; Miss Fleper retired to her room

and went to bed.

Prior to her doing so the respondent trled

to dissuade her by asking her to stay up and have some more

beer, but at that time the respondent was fairly drunk. Upon

her retirement Miss Fleper left five full bottles of Crown

Lager beer; but when she rose in the morning she noticed that all five bottles were empty although the respondent had been drinking cans of Carlton Draught beer whilst the two of

them conversed until the early hours of the morning.	Crown
Lager bottles hold thirteen ounces of beer.

At 3.35 a.m. the control room of the Northern

Territory Fire Brlgade recelved a message that there was a fire in Shultz Street which runs off Lambell Terrace. At

3 .36 a.m. the flrst fire truck arrived, and noticed that the Red Cross Cpportunity Shop was on fire. It took the fire

brigade about 10 minutes to bring the fire under control.

The observations of the firemen were that there was one room in which the fire had obviously started being a

bedroom in which there was a bed and mattress.

It was a

' I

room kept by the Red Cross for accommodating people who	,
visited Darwin from the outback to see their relatives or

friends who were in the Darwin Hospital.	There was nobody
resident in that room that night.

At 4.11 a.m. the Control Centre of the Fire Brigade

received a second call in connection with a fire in the

Psychiatric Clinic which is part of the Darwin Hospital. The

fire brigade was at the ~ e d

Cross Centre at that time; they

moved to the second fire and brought it under control by

4-20

a.m.

When the fire brigade arrived at the Psychiatric

Clinic it was full of smoke but they were able to restrict the fire to a small storage room where the fire had been started and which contained highly inflammable material in the form of toilet rolls and paper towels.

I need not review the evidence as to the witnesses

who identified the respondent as the person who started the

fire because there is no d o h t that it was he who did so.

At 4.43 a.m. the police communications centre at Darwln received the first of four telephone calls from a

person claiming to have lit the fires at the Psychiatric was received at 5.00 a.m., the third between 5.20 a.m. and

5.25 a.m. and the final call at about 7.03 a.m.

Steps wcre taken to trace the calls. They were

traced to the premises of No. 1 Lambell Terrace. Thereafter

the police surrounded the premises and al;rested the respondent

Before the respondent was arrested, Mr. Findlay

rose at about 6.40 a.nl. and spoke to the respondent who was standing in the kitchen wearing a dressing gown and drinking beer. The respondent-told Mr. Findlay that he

had been up all night and had seen vehicles with flashing

lights travelling up and down in front of the house. Mr.

Findlay noticed that there were four empty Crown Lager bottles of beer.

At about 8.00 a.m. at the poiice station the

respondent was questioned by the policp. He claimed to have slept until 7.00 in the morning and denied that he had made any telephone calls durlng the evening or morning

and said that he was asleep.

He denied any knowledge of the

fires at the Red Cross Centre and the Psychiatric Clinic.

He then sought legal advlce and, having obtained it, declined

to answer any further questions.

There was considerable damage to the Red Cross

Opportunity Shop. The damage to the Psychiatric Clinic was restricted to its contents.

This is not the first time that the respondent

has been convicted of arson.

In January 1976 he was

sentenced by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in with no pdrole perlod being fixed. The respondent was rcleased from prison in Western Australia on 8 April 1978

having served his sentence for two years and three months.

Within less than eight months he had lit the fires in the

Red Cross Opportunity Shop and the Psychiatric Centre of the

Darwin Hospital.

The Crown contended before this Court that the

learned sentencing judge should have imposed a substantial

sentence on each count and should have found in all the

circumstances that no non-parole period should be specified.

This court will interfere with the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge if it is established that his

Honour was in error in acting on a wrong pr~nciple

or in

wrongly determining some material evidentiary question. This

court does not intervene merely because in its opinion the	I
sentence is excessive or inadequate. The error may appear

from the learned sentenc~ng

judge's remarks or from the

sentence itself which may be manifestly insufficient or

excessive. See Skinner v. -

R. (1913) 16 C.L.R. 366;

Whittaker v. R, (1928) 41 C.L.R.

230; Griffiths v. R, (1977)

15 A.L.R.

1; R, v.

(a decision of the Full Bench of

this court delivered on 1 May 1979, not yet reported.)

Although the '~ederal

Court of Australia Act 1976

does not distinguish in principle between appeals by the

Crown and those by convicted persons, some special considerations arise where the Crown appeals on the ground that the sentence is insufficient. See Peel v. R, (1971)

125 C.L.R. 447 espec~ally

per Barwick C. J. at p. 452; R, v.

Tait (supra).

In R. v. =

(supra) Brennan, Deane and

-	-
Gallop JJ. said:-

"It would be unjust to a defendant, whose

freedom is in jeopardy for thc sccond time. to consider on appeal a case made against . him on a new basis - a basis which he might have successfully challenged had the case

against him been fully presented before

the sentencing court...There would be few

cases where the appellate court bould

intervene on an appeal against sentcnce

to.correct an alleged error by increasing the

sentcnce if the Crown had not done what was

reasonably requlred to assist the sentencing

judge to avoid the error, or if the defendant

were unduly prejudiced in meeting for the first

time on appeal the true case against him."

In the light of these principles I turn to the

present appeal, The Crown submitted that the learned

sentencing judge lmposed sentences so manifestly inadequate

as called for the intervention of this Court. The Crown

contended that his Honour had regard solely to the question

of rehabilitation of the respondent to the exclusion of

matters of deterrence and the general protection of the

community. The Crown submitted that his Honour's error

is manifest from an examination of first, the inherent

nature of the offences themselves; second, the circumstances

surrounding the commission of the offences; third, the

character of the respondent particularly when consideration

is given to his antecedents, and fourth, the future prospects

of rehabilitation of the respondent as opposed to the very

real prospect of a repet~tion	by him of the same sort of
offence .

The maximum penalty prescribed for 'the offence, the

subject of the first count, is fourteen years' imprisonment.

In Tait3s Case (supra) the Court said:-

"A miximum penalty is reserved for the worst

type of case falling within the relevant

prohibition. The observance of this principle

secures proportion and comparability among

sentences imposed. ..The prescribing of a maximum

penalty in respect of an offence not only marks

the limits of the court's discretionary power as

to sentence, it also ordinarily prescribes what

the penalty should be in the wonst type of case

which falls within the relevant class of offence...

provides the flexibility in sentencing which not be imposed in a case which otherwise required it merely because a worse case could be imagined.

...	That principle requires that both the nature

of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal'

be considered in determining whether the case is

of the worst type.''

The circ~~mstances

surrounding the commission of

the offence and the antecedents of the respondent require

imposition of a substantial sentence.

The deterrent aspect of punishment is of considerable

importance in cases of thls kind. The sentence should

demonstrate to others tempted to engage in offencesof a like

nature that pun~shment

wlll be Imposed calculated to protect

society from serious attacks upon it.

It was submitted by counsel for the respondent that

it would not be in the best Interest of the respondent to be

sentenced to a term of imprisonment as he was a person

suffering from deep-seated psychological problems. A great

deal of psychiatric and psychological material was before the

learned sentencing judge. His Honour gave great weight to

what he regarded as the respondent's prospects of

rehabilitation.

I haveyno doubt that the respondent impressec

himself upon the learned sentencing judge as a man with

distinct disorders of personality. HIS Honour clearly held

thc vicw that thc rcspondcnt was capable of being rehabilitate

provided he had the support of probation officers, psychiat-

rists and psychologists.

I have considered the psychiatric

and psychological evidence placed before his Honour but have

come to thc conclusion it does not support hls Honour's

conclusion as to the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation

The maximum penalty prescribed for the first offence namely fourteen years' imprisonment, reflects its seriousness Loss than eight months before he committed that offence the

respondent had been released from prison in Western Australia

having earlier committed offences of a like nature there.	I
am left with the strong impression that the respondent is

quite likely to offend again in a similar way.

In my

opinion the reformative aspect was given too much weight

by the learned sentencing judge.

The result of his Honour's

decislon when the sentence is viewed as a whole, is to

produce a sentence so lenient that it-does not accord with

the general moral sense of the community and is unlikely to

be a sufficient deterrent to the respondent or to others.

See R, v. Geddes (1936) 36 S.R. (~.S.~)554; Channon v. T(,

(1978) 20 A.L.R. 1 ; R, v. Prindable - a decision of the Full Bench of this court delivered 9 March 1979, not yet reported.

The error in the sentence of the learned sentencing

judge is manifested particularly by the provision for the

release of the respondent on 2 July 1979 and as well by the

term of the non-parole period.

In my opinion the case calls for a sentence

imposing a term of in~prisonment

without such release and

the fixing of a longer non-parole period.

I do not think

it necessary to alter the term of the head sentence.

I agree wlth the conclusion of Gallop J., whose

reasons for judgment I have read, that no order should be

made by this court in respect of the seGtence on the

substituted second count.

In the result I would allow the appeal and order .

that in substitution for the sentence imposed on the first

count the respondent be imprisoned for a period of four

years ten months.

I specify a period of two years six monthz

N .

during which he will not be el~gible

for parole. The

sentence will date from 20 4prll 1979.

I agree with the learned sentencing judge that

the sentences imposed an both counts should be served

cor~currcrlLly.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1 .

NORTHERN TERRITORY *DISTRICT REGISTRY )

No. NTG 11 o f 1979

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Appel lan t

AND:

PHILLIP GRAHAM HALL

Respondent

CORAM:

TOOHEY, GALLOP & LOCKHART JJ.

28 June 1979

REASONS FOR JITDG>lENT

GALLOP J. :

T h i s i s an

appea l by

t h e CxSown a g a i n s t t h e

s en t ence

imposed i n the,Supreme Court of

t h e Northern T e r r i t o r y by

Muirhead J. on 20 A p r i l 1979.

The respondent was arraignec!

on an ind ic tment p re sen ted i n t h e name

Graham R i c h ~ r d

Nicholson,

a person appoin ted by t h e Attorney-General

purs3ant

t o s.13

o f t h e Criminal Law

and Procedure Act

and c o n t a i n i n g

two

counts :

"Count 1

Unlawfrilly

and ma l i c ious ly

s e t t i n g f i r e t o a

bu i ld ing :

c c n t r a r y t o s e c t i o n 8 6 of

t h e Criminal

Law Consol ida t ion Act and Ordinance.

PARTICULARS

P h i l l i p Graham H a l l d i d on

t h e 20th day

November 1973, i n Lambell Te r r ace Darlrin i n

t h e

h o r t h e r n

Ter.r'itory. o f

. \ ~ ~ s t r a l i a ,

un l a r \ fu l ly

---

----

-* d-r- a

>W ;v--.

-4 ,=-

-m

- :

,.:.:L.<-<-

TT---~-

W	L.., :,* .- c" .S --

- > ~ r . ."A

.--

- -

_ _-

- - - -

and malicious,.>,

s e t f i r e t o a b u i l d i n g ,

namely

-	t h e Red	Cross.	&oc ie ty C lo th ing S tore .
Count 2

Unlawfully

and1 ma l i c ious ly

s e t t i n g f i r e t o a

. b u i l d i n g used :,v

o r f o r a department

goxvernment: cQ*r~t.rary

t o s e c t i o n 85 of

t h e

Criminal

Law

Cs4~nsol ida t ion

A c t and Ordinance.

PARTICULARS

P h i l l i p Grahafi11 t j n l l on t h e 20th

day o f

November

1978 i n LambeL? Ter race , Darwin,

i n t h e Northern

T e r r i t o r y of

& x ~ s t r a l i a

unla\ \ . ful ly

and

mal ic io i l s ly

set f i r e t o eh:.

Day

C e n t r e of

Darwin

Hosp i t a l ,

be ing a buildii,,:

used by o r f o r a department of

government,

n+~ti,ly t h e Hea l th Department."

The accused

p leaded Q\$k g u i l t y t o bo th

counts .

A f t e r t h e t r i a l

had proceeded f o r *h-0

days t h e Crown

a p p l i e d t o have t h e accused

r e - a r r a igned

t h e f i k S t

count,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i f

pleaded

g u i l t y t o t h e first C\\)\nt,

t h a t is if he

changed h i s p l e a from

one

gJi l ty

?\+li l tv,- t h e Crown-~\-ould

t h e n

seek

l e a v e

t o e n t e r a

n o l l e P1'oSC~~ltii

on t h e second

count i n t h e i nd i c tmen t

i n i t s o r i g i n a l form,

H i s Honour

t h e n

r a i s e d t h e

q u e s t i o n

whether

t h e r e should \\t:

v e r d i c t of

t h e j u r y on t h e second c o ~ ~ n t .

The Cro5r.n Prosec'Jtor

-I\\formed h i s Honour t h a t t h e accused as n o t

i n t h e c h a r s of

t h e

on t h a t count a t t h a t j unc tu re .

H i s

- - ..

fIonour accede6 t o *hi$ s ta tement , which,

it is now conceded,

was

i n c o r r e c t .

The

a D k ~ s e d

was indeed i n t h e charge of

t h e

. --

jury on t h e second cQ\lllt.

The accused was t h e n re -a r ra igned on

-. ., -

C. .

___ .

the

fi-rst

plea(\bt1 g u i l t y t o it

and t h e Cror\.n a p p l i e d t o

- -

adr' a Eresh count

~ \ I C

i nd i c tmen t ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it

rronld

e n t e r a

n o l l e proseclll4

111 r e l a t i o n t o t h e second count i n t h e

ind ic tment

i n i t s o r i ~ l ! k a l

form.

H i s Honour

accep ted an under-

t.ltcing from t h e Crown Lllat t h i s would be done and thereupon t h c

Cl'oun

a p p l i e d

t o s ' J b s C l ~ t t t e

ano the r

corlnt

f o r t h e second c o r ~ n t ,

namely

a charge of

unlawful

and ma l i c ious damage

i n t h e n i g h t ,

p a r t i c u l a r s whereof

were

t h a t t h e accused

d i d on

t h e 20th

November 1978 a t Lambell Ter race , Darwin,

un lawful ly and

m a l i c i o i ~ s l y

commit

damage

i n t h e n i g h t t o r e a l and pe r sona l

p rope r ty ,

namely

t h e Day

Cent re of

Darwin

Hosp i t a l

and c h a t t e l s

t h e r e i n ,

such damage

amounting t o $100.00.

Counsel f o r t h e

accused consented t o t h a t amendment.

The accused was then

a r r a i g n e d on

t h e

s u b s t i t r l t e d

second

count

( a s it

was

c a l l e d )

and

pleaded g u i l t y t o t h a t count.

The

r e s u l t o f

t h i s ~ r o c e d u r e

was

t h a t t h e accused had

pleaded g u i l t y t o t h e o r i g i n a l f i r s t

corint

i n t h e i nd i c tmen t and

t o a f u r t h e r c o ~ r n t

added 'c-

t h e

l e a v e bf

t h e t r i a l judge

cn t h e t h i r d day of

t h e t r i a l .

The

l e a r n e d

t r i a l judge

then

6 i r e c t e d t h c j u ry

t o e n t e r a 1-er<Lct

g u i l t y i n r e l a t i o n t h e f i r s t ccunt and

t h e seccnc! c c ~ ~ n t

a h i c h

had been added by leave.

I mzke s r n s comments l a t e r aborlt t h e

p r o p r i e t y

o f

t h i s proced:?re,

b u t

t h e f o l l o a i n g f a c t s a r e comao.1

ground

t h e hea r ing

o f

t h e

appea l

b e f o r e u s :

(1)

The Crown gave an underta1;ing t o f i l e a

n o l l e proseoui

i n r e s p e c t of

the

o r i g i n a l

second

count

i n t h e

i n d i c t l e n t .

( 2 )

The n c l l e p rosequi was i n f a c t f i l e d i n t h e

name cf Graham Richard Kicholscn v.ho had

presen ted

t h e

o r i g i n a l ind ic tment ,

a l though

it i s noted

t h a t t h e n o l l e prosequi

a s f i l e d

was n o t s igned by

t h e s a i d Graham

Kichard

Xicholson

o r anyone e l s e .

(3)

The

a p p l i c a t i o n t o amend

t h e i nd i c tmea t

s c

a s t o add t h e count of

ma l i c ious damage t o

p r c p e r t y

i n t h e n i g h t

was

made

o r a l l y .

( 4 )

The

l e a r n e d

p rosecu to r

rrho

made

t n a t

a p p l i c a t i o n

t o add t h e count was n o t

a persoq a7po in t ee by

t h e Attorney-General

t o

p r o s e c ~ i t e

ind i c tmen t

pursuant

t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of

S. 13 of

t h e

Criminal Las and Proced-lre Act.

(j)

The r h o l e procedgre be fo re t h e t r i e l judze

{,as

taker. icith t h e conserlt c f t h e rcs,qcndenc.

I n t h e

cou r se of

t h e h e a r i n g o f

t h i s appea l

c e r t a i n

m a t t e r s were

r a i s e d by

t h e Court

r e l a t i n g

t o t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s

o r o the rwi se o f

f i l i n g a

n o l l e proseqii i

i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

o r i g i n a l

second count,

t h e f a c t t h a t it

was

a p ~ a r e n t l y

f i l e d by

a person ho ld ing an appointment from t h e Attorney-General

under

s.13 o f t h e Criminal Law

and procedure Act t o p rosecu te by

ind i c tmen t

bu t

a u t h o r i t y

t o d e c l i n e t o p rosecu te ,

t h e f a c t

t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o add t h e count

ma l i c ious damage

t o

p r o p e r t y i n t h e n i g h t \\.as made

o r a l l y and

never

reduced t~

w r i t i n g ( excep t by h i s Honour)

s o t h a t it was

n o t apparen t

i ts f a c e t h a t t h a t

count

was

p r e s e n t e d by

person

a u t h o r i s e d

i n t h a t beha l f ,

and was i n f a c t made by a person hho ,\.as n o t

a n t h o r i s e d by

t h e Attorney-General

t o p rosecu te

ind i c tmen t

pursuant

t o an

ap2ointment under

s.13.

These m a t t e r s h a v i ~ l g

been

r a i s e d ,

i t was

ccnccded by t h e a p p e l l a n t t h a t t h e x-oced.lre

whereby

t h e c r i g i n a l second count was

disposed of

\\.as i r r e g - 1 1 a r

i n t h e c i rcumstances .

I t was

conceded t h a t t h e a p p r c ~ r i n t e

course ,

having

r e g a r d t o

t h e

f a c t t h a t t h e

a c c ~ l s e d

xias t hen i n

t h e charge of

t h e j v r y on

t h e second count a s h e l l as t h e f i r s t

count ,

was

t o d i r e c t t h e j u r y t o e n t e r a v e r d i c t of

n o t

g - l i l t y

i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t count.

I t is a m a t t e r of no l i t t l e ccncern

t h a t t h e Cro~\-n

s l ~ g g e s t e d

cou r se t o t h e l e a r n e d

t r i a l j . ~dge

which

was

\\,holly i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n a l l t h e c i r c :~ms taaces .

The

i r r e g u l a r i t y 15as

exace rba t ed by

t h e f a c t , t h a t rihen

t h e n o l l e

p rosequi was f i l e d appa ren t ly it was

f i l e d by t h e same

person

who

had p re sen ted t h e o r i g i n a l i nd i c tmen t and

\\-as argued

on beha l f

t h e Cronn t h a t t h i s !,.as

a p rouer cou r se b e c a i ~ s e

o f

t h e p rov i s ion

s . 4 3

t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

Act.

T h i s

s e c t i o n

reads:

"43.

Where

an Act

c o n f e r s a power

t o t a k e an

a c t i o n

o r t o malte,

g r a n t o r i sme

any

in s t rumen t

l e g i s l a t i v e o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c h a r a c t e r ,

t h e power

s h a l l b e cons t rued a s i n c l u d i n g a

power

e x e r c i s a b l e i n a

l i k e manner

and

s u b j e c t

t o t h e

l i k e

c o n d i t i o n s t o

repea l , r e s c i n d ,

revoke,

amend

o r v a r y any

such

a c t i o n o r ins t rument ."

t h e h e a r i n g of

t h i s appeal t h e Crown's

argument was

t h a t a person 1,ho had been au6horised by t h e Attorney-General t o p rosecu te by ind i c tmen t i n h i s own name cou ld pursuant t o

s.43 of o r va ry any ind ic tmen t so presen ted .

t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act

r e p e a l ,

r e sc ind ,

revoke,

amead

I n my

viess t h i s argument

is f a l l a c i o u s .

C e r t a i n l y

s .43

t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act

would

o p e r a t e s o

a s t o i n v e s t i n t h e Attorney-General

t h e p o r e r

t o

r e p e a l ,

r e sc ind ,

revoke,

amend-or va ry any appointment of

person t o prosecu te by ind i c tmen t i n h i s osvn

name,

bu t t h a t i s

n o t t o say t h a t an

appointment under

s .13

would i n v e s t i n t h e

appoin tee a

power

t o e n t e r a n o l l e p rosequi

i n p roceedings sthere

t h a t person

had

a l r e a d y prosecu ted by

ind ic tmen t i n h i s own

narnc.

Apart

from

o r d i n a r y

c o n s t r u c t i o n

o f

s .43

and

t h e n a t u r e

a n o l l e prosequi

t h e reason f o r t h i s is c l e a r .

It is a ve ry

s i g n i f i c a n t m a t t e r

f o r . the

Cr0r.n

t o d e c l i n e t o

proceed

f l ~ r t h e r

i n c i rcumstances where

t h e o r d i n a r y procedure of

committal

f o r

t r i a l b e f o r e

c o u r t

summary

j u r i s d i c t i o n

and

t h e f i n d i n g

a b i l l of

ind ic tment

have t a k e n p lace .

I t is n o t

s u r p r i s i n g

and accords r\.it;h

sound execu t ive government t h a t t h e At torney-

General liould

wish t o p re se rve t o himsel?

t h e power t o make t h e

'"timate

and impor tan t

d e c i s i o n o f

d e c l i n i n g

t o p rosecu te

lurcher where

t;hese

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

a c t s have been

ccnlpleted

a s

''Ir Of

t he ord inary

p r e l i m i n a r i e s t o a

p rosecu t ion

&a*'tr totale

offence ( s e c Archbold 39th ed.,

para .

142; l!'atson

2.1 ,.l*

1 *

' u j n a l

La\,. i n Kew South lt'ales,

para .

1060; and

I. c , .

(1909)

26 V . N .

152) .

I n my

vie\\,,

t h e r e f o r e ,

t h e n o l l e p rosequi ,

i f f o r no

o t h e r

reason,

was

i n e f f e c t i v e i n t h i s case .

Even

i f t h e

document f i l e d had been i n p roper form and p re sen ted by a

person

who

had

a u t h o r i t y t o f i l e a n o l l e p rosequi ,

t h i n k

t h a t it should have been seen on i t s f a c e t o have been executed

by such a person and n o t b e an unsigned document.

F o r t h e

p r e s e n t

purposes,

hq\iever,

no th ing f u r t h e r t u r n s upon

t h i s

s e r i e s o f

i r r e g u l a r i t i e s .

c o n s i d e r it

imporkant

t o p o i n t

- -

o u t t h a t t h e procedures

adopted i n t h i s c a s e h e r e

i r r e g u l a r

and

should be

avoided i n t h e f u t u r e .

The

n e x t

m a t t e r

t o which

a t t e n t i o n

should be

d i r e c t e d

i s

t h a t

t h e procedure

khereby

a n o t h e r charge

was

p r e f e r r e d

a g a i n s t

t h e accused was

i r r e - ~ l a r .

The

a p p l i c a t i o n t o add t h e ccun t

w a s an o r a l a p p l i c a t i o n made,

a s I

s a i d e a r l i e r ,

a Cro\,m

P rosecu to r who

was n o t a person appoin ted by t h e Xttorney-

General pursuant t o s .13 of t h e Criminal Lari 2nd Procet211re Act.

is p l a i n from t h c t e r m s of

t h e I n d i c t m e n t s Act

s .7

t h a t an

i n d i c t m e a t should i n d i c a t e t h e name

t h e person by

v.hom

is p resen ted

and

t h e a u t h o r i t y of

t h a t person

t o p r e s e n t

it.

P r i o r t o t h e I n d i c t m e n t s .4ct

196s

t h e r e was

l e g i s l a t i o n

r e g u l a t i n g

t h e

p r e s e n t a t i o n

o f

i n d i c t m e n t s

o r t h e i r form

i n

t h e Xorthern

T e r r i t o r y ;

consequent ly

i n d i c ~ m e n t s

were

formerly

pre-sented i n common

law l a n , ~ a $ e and form.

The Inclictments Act

1968 prov ides f o b t h e manner

p resen ta5 ion

i nd i c tmcn te f o r

t h e

p rosecu t ion

c r i m i n a l

o f f e n c e s i n t h e

Xorthern

T e r r i t o r y

and

makes

p l a i n

t h a t i n d i c t m e n t s

should

charge t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e

o f f e n c e s

i n i n t e l l i g i b l e and

p l a i n

lan,uage.

t h e h e a r i n g of

t h i s appea l t h e Crorcn

sought t o r e l y

upon

s.19

o f

t h e I n d i c t m e n t s Act

a s a u t h o r i t y

f o r t h e nay

i n

which t h i s ind ic tment \,.as amended,

i f t h a t i s t h e proper term,

l	by t h e a d d i t i o n of	ano the r count of	an o f f e n c e of	a	d i f f e r e n t
i
l

na tu re .

Sec t ion

o f

t h e I n d i c t m e n t s A c t

reads:

"18.

(1)

Where,

b e f o r e t r i a l o r a t any s t a g e of

a t r i a l ,

appears t o t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e

i nd i c tmen t

i s d e f e c t i v e ,

t h e

c o u r t

s h a l l make

such

o r d e r

f o r t h e amendment

t h e i n d i c t m e n t

a s t h e c o u r t

t h i n k s neces sa ry

t o m e e t t h e

c i rcumstances of

t h e

case ,

u n l e s s ,

hav ing

r ega rd

t o t h e m e r i t s o f

t h e case ,

t h e

r e q u i r e d

amendments cannot be

made

wi thout i n j u s t i c e ,

and may

make

sgch o r d e r a s t o t h e payment

o f

any

c o s t s i n c u r r e d

o ~ % i n g

t o t h e n e c e s s i t y

f o r

amendment

a s t h e

c o u r t t h i n k s f i t .

( 2 )

Where

an ind i c tmen t i s so amended,

n o t e of

t h e o r d e r f o r amendment

s h a l l b e

endorsed

t h e i nd i c tmen t ,

and

t h e i nd i c tmen t

s h a l l be

t r e a t e d f o r t h e purposes o f

t h e t r i a l

and f o r t h e purposes of

a l l p roceedings i n

connexion

t h e r e w i t h

a s having

been

p r e s e n t e d

i n t h e amended form."

T h i s p r o v i s i o n

i s no

j u s t i f i c a t i o n

f o r t h e

course

lrhich

was

adopted a t t h e t r i a l .

T h i s i nd i c tmen t was

n o t

d e f e c t i v e .

I t

may

w e l l be t h a t t h e ev idence l e d by

t h e Crown

was

i n s u f f i c i e n t

t o suppor t

conv ic t ion on t h e second

count i n i t s o r i g i n a l

form.

But

t h a t i s n o t t h e same

t h i n g a s s ay ing t h a t t h e

i nd i c tmen t was d e f e c t i v e .

The purpose of

s.18

i s t o permit

amendment

o f

an ind i c tmen t s o a s t o meet

t h e c i rcumstances of

t h e c a s e provided

t h i s can be

done

wi thout i n j u s t i c e t o t h e

accused.

r e j e c t t h e Crown's

ar-wments

i n s o f a r a s t h e y a r e

based upon s.18.

It was f d r t h e r contended by

t h e Cr.own

t h a t t h e

i r r e - ~ l a r i t i e s

r e f e r r e d t o a r e o f

account- because t h e accused

consented t o t h e course adopted by

t h e Crown.

The Crown h a s a

du ty t o t h e Court t o a s s i s t it i n t h e t a s k of

conduct ing a

c r i m i n a l t r i a l ,

i n c l u d i n g t h e

arra ignment

t h e accused,

t h e

r eco rd ing o f

h i s p l e a s and

t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n

any

evidence

i n accordance

wi th

proper

r u l e s of

c r i m i n a l procedure.

The

Crowm should be c r i m i n a l p rocedures

me t i cu lous t o ensu re

t h a t s t r i c t l y a p p r o p r i a t e

a r e adopted.

Fo r t h e Cro~cn

t o r e l y upon

t h e consen t

o f

t h e accused a s an

a b s o l u t i o n f o r i ts f a i l u r e t o

a s s i s t t h e

c o u r t i n impor t an t m a t t e r s of

procedure

i s a

d e r e l i c t i o n o f

i t s a l l impor tan t

du ty t o t h e

c o u r t .

The

Crown

is under

du ty t o a s s i s t t h e c o u r t

t o avoid any

d e p a r t u r e s

from

proper

c r i m i n a l

procedure ,

e s p e c i a l l y

i f

t h o s e

d e p a r t u r e s

might

r e s u l t ,

a s t h e y d i d i n t h i s ca se ,

i n a p l e a of

g u i l t y t o

a	charge improper ly p re sen ted and a sen tence be ing imposed upon

an accused perscn on such improper ly presen ted charge.

'There

bo-ild be

f e b

c a s e s indeed where

a p p e l l a t e cc i l r t

woiild

i n t e r v e n e on

appea l by

t h e Cro~r-n

a g a i n s t

s cn t ence

t o

c o r r e c t

a.1

a l l e g e d

s e n t e n c i n g e r r o r

i n c r e a s i n g

t h e

s en t ence

i f t h e Cr0v.n

had n o t done what was

reasonably

r e q u i r e d t o a s s i s t

t h e s en t enc ing judge

t o avoid e r r o r s i n procedure.

What

have

s a i d alr-eady i s s u f f i c i e n t t o i n d i c a t e t h a t

i f

a p p l i c a t i o n

was made

t o quash t h e conv ic t ion

and

sen tence on t h e s u b s t i t u t e d

count of of t h e Criminal Law 8: Consol ida t ion Act, I ~r.ould be disposec! GO

ma l i c ious damage

t o p r o p e r t y i n t h e n i g h t under

s.129

quash

t h e conv ic t ion and sen tence .

such

a p p l i c a t i o n has been

made

a t t h e p r e s e n t

t ime

b u t

t h e Cro~rn should i t se l f

apply f o r

such an o r d e r .

The powers of

t h i s Court under s .28(1)

o f t h e

Fede ra l

Court

o f

A l ~ s t r a l i a Act

a r e

s f l f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y f o r

t h i s cour-se .

On	t h e first count t h e respondent was sen tenced t o

imprisonment

f o r f o u r y e a r s and t e n ca l enda r monzhs

wi th ha rd

l a b o u r

and

t h e

s en t enc ing judge

s p e c i f i e d a

pe r iod

two

y e a r s

du r ing which

t h e

respondent

rr,ould

n o t become

e l i g i b l e f o r pa ro l e .

d i d n o t a n t e c e d e n t s o f

app ly because

o f

t h e n a t u r e o f

t h e o f f e n c e s and

t h e

of fender .

S e c t i o n 4 ( 3 )

o f

t h e A c t p rov ides

t h a t t h e du ty

does n o t

app ly

" if

t h e c o u r t

c o n s i d e r s t h a t t h e

n a t u r e

t h e of f ence

o r o f f e n c e s and t h e

an t eceden t s

t h e

o f f e n d e r

n o t war ran t

t h e

s p e c i f y i n g of

t h e l e s s e r term

imprisonment".

I n The

Oueen

Ta : t

B a r t l e y

( u n r e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n

t h i s C o ~ l r t

d e l i v e r e d on

1 May

1979) t h e Court

set o u t t h e

p r i n c i p l e s governing

t h e

review

t h e

s en t enc ing d i s c r e t i o n

a p p e l l a t e c o . ~ r t , p a r t i c u l a r l y

i n a

c a s e of

a n appea l by

t h e Crorin

on t h e ground t h a t t h e s en t ence i s inadequate .

I t is

n o t ne'cessary t o r e p e a t what

was

s e t o u t i n t h a t j~td,ment;

i t

i s s u f f i c i e n t t o observe t h a t t h i s Collrt

w i l l o n l y i n t e r f e r e

i f

shox,.n

t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge

was

i n e r r o r i n a c t i n g on

wrong

p r i n c i p l e

o r i n mis :~nders tanding o r wrongly

a s s e s s i n g

some

s a l i e n t f e a t u r e o f t h e evidence.

The

e r r o r may

appear i ~ .

\!hat

t h e judge

s a i d i n t h e proceedings o r t h e s en t encc i t s e l f

may

so e x c e s s i v e o r i nadecua te

a s t o man i f e s t

such

e r r o r .

A s s t a t e d i n t h a t

ca se ,

t h e

r e l e v a n t

p r o v i s i o n s

t h e Feder;?]

Court

c f

- 4 u s t r a l i a Act

n o t

p rov ide

any

b a s i s f o r d i s t i n -

g u i s h i n g betbeen

t h e

g e n e r a l

p r i n c i p l e s

t o be

a p p l i e d by

t h e

Court

Crorm

appea l

a g a i n s t

s en t ence and t h e p r i n c i p l e s

t o b e a p p l i e d on	an	appea l	a g a i n s t	s en t encc by	a	convic ted
person.

The

f a c t s g i v i n g rise

t o t h e

coun t s

a g a i n s t t h e respondent

a l l took

p l a c e on

2 0 h'ovember

197s .

A t t h a t t i m e he was

r e s i d i n g

a t 1 Lambell

Te r r ace which

is o p p o s i t e t h e Darwin

Hosp i t a l .

H e had

been

l i v i n g t h e r e f o r about

t ~ c o months.

Preniises run by t h e Red Cross , knov:n

a s t h e Red Cross Cppor tun i ty .

Shop,

are a l s o i n t h e same

s t r e e t .

During t h e s i x

months p r i o r t o 20 November

t h e responder~t;

1:ad

don^

v o l u n t a r y work f o r t h e Red Cross.

Sunday l9

?;O-

t h e respondent ,

one F ind lay ,

and another person x :

d i n e

a t a

r e s t a u r a n t

i n Darrcin.

They

a r r i v e d a t t1

a t 6.30

p.m.

and t h e obse rva t ion t h e n made o f them

t h e respondent ,

was

t h a t t h e y were n o t intoxicate..

some mixed

d r i n k s and t h e n f o u r b o t t l e s of

wine

The

respondent

and

F ind lay l e f t t h e

r e s t a u r a n t

b t : C

and 12.45

a.m.

and t h e r e sponden t ' s

c o n d i t i o n :ca.;

.' .

a s be ing

b i t i n t o s i c a t e d "

o r " t h r e e

p a r t s druni.

respondent was d r i v e n home t o 1 Lambell Te r r ace a; : '

went t o bed.

The premises were orined by t h e prcw- ' -

t h e r e s t a u r a n t

and

s h e came home

about

h a l f

zn h m -

respondent

and t h e n r o n r i e t o r e s s t h e n !lac!

tv:o

hot'-

The p r o p r i e t o r e s s !cent

t o bed

a t about 3 a.=.

l I

respondent was f a i r l y drunk.

Ir'hen she r5ent t o bet

- .

f o u r o r f ix-e b o t t l e s o f Crorrn Lager bee r

still r;o :-

-i

when

she g o t up t h e nex t morning she f o ~ n d

t h a t c'-.:.

been consl~med. A t abcu t 3.35 a.m.

on t h e c o r n i n g 1

" .

I. I

1978 t h e ccnc ro l room

t h e Korthern T e r r i t o r y F.

r ece ived a message t h a t t h e r e rias a f i r e i n Sckdl i s c l o s e t o Lambell Ter race , a f i r e t e n d e r has qu

despatched and on

a r r i v a l t h e f i r e b r igade found

shop on f i re .

It took about t e n minutes t o b r i n g

c o n t r o l .

It was

deduced

t h a t t h e f i r e had c c m ~ c n

bedroom

i n t h o s e premises ,

b u t t h e r e was no-onc

E l e c t r i c a l f a u l t a s a

cause of

t h e f i r e was

ru l ed

a l though t h r e e

"ho t

spo t s "

which

a p p a r e n t l y

a r e t

p o i n t s o f

f i r e were

i d e n t i f i e d ,

t h e f i r e b r i g a d e

o f f i c e r s

were

unab le t o p i n p o i n t t h e cause of

t h e f i r e .

A t 4.11

a.m.

on t h e same day ano the r message was

rece ived ,

o f a f i r e a t t h e

Day

Cent re i n t h e Darwin Hosp i t a l .

T h i s i s a

c e n t r e f o r

p s y c h i a t r i c t r ea tmen t .

Again

f i re t e n d e r was

despatched and

it was found t h a t t h e r e was a

f i r e i n a

sma l l s t o r a g e room

i n

t h e Day

Centre.

The

s t o r a g e

room

con ta ined such h i g h l y

inflammable

a r t i c l e s a s t o i l e t and paper

r o l l s .

Between

4.43

a.m.

end 7 . 0 3 a.m.

t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n a t Darwin head-

q u a r t e r s r e c e i v e d f o u r

t e l ephone

c a l l s from

person

c l a iming

t o have lit t h e two

f i r e s .

These c a l l s h e r e t a p e d and

t r a n s c r i p t s o f

t h e t a p e s were produced

i n evidence.

The

c a l l s

were mzde by t h e respondent .

While h e 13as making t h e l a s t

t e l ephone

c a l l t h e p o l i c e

a r r i v e d

a t 1 Lambell

Te r r ace ,

t h e

t e l e p h o n e

c a l l s h a r i n g been

t r a c e d

t o t h a t

address .

The

p o l i c e

were admit ted,

apprehended t h e respondent and h e was talten t o

t h e

p o l i c e

s t a t i o n .

A t about 8

a.m.

a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n t h e respondent was

ques t ioned by Det. Const. Eainbr idge.

Lhen asked abo.-~

t h i s

movements

t h e p r e v i o ~ ~ s

n i g h t t h e respondent

t c l d D e t .

Const.

Ba inbr idge tha"e

had

been t o t h c r e s t a u r a n t wi th Ton

( ~ i n d l a ~ j

ant! 31elissa

( t h e p r n ~ r i e t o r e s s

o f

t h e

r e s t a u r a n t ) .

s a i d

t h a t h e hed been t h e r e u n t i l jgst

a f t e r midnight and,

having

been

d r i v e n home,when

Mel i s sa

a r r i v e d he

spoke t o h e r f o r about

an hour and t h e n went t o bed.

H e s a i d he had gone t o t h e

r e s t au ra r i t

a c abont

h a l f

p a s t

sis

and

clid

n o t

l e a v e t h e h o l ~ s e

a f t e r he

had g o t home.

H e claimed t o have

s l e p t u n t i l seven

i n t h e morning.

denied t h a t he had made any phone c a l l s

du r ing t h e morning and

s a i d t h a t he was

a s l eep .

IIe

cieniel any

knowledge of

t h e f i r e s a t t h e Red Cross Cen t r e and t h e Day

Centre.

H e t h e n

sought

l e g a l

a d v i c e

and

hav ing

o b t a i n e d it

d e c l i n e d t o answer

any

f u r t h e r ques t ions .

Damage

by f i r e t o t h e Red Cross Oppor tun i ty Shop was

cons iderab le .

Damage

t o t h e Day

Cen t r e was

r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e

c o n t e n t s r a t h e r t h a n

s t r u c t u r a l damage.

was

contended on

t h e appea l t h a t t h e f i res lit

t h e accused were

o f

t h e g r a v e s t

c h a r a c t e r ,

because

t h e n a t u r e

t h e bu i ld ings themse lves

and

t h e i r con ten t s .

The Crown

contended t h a t it would b e a p p r o p r i a t e '

t o t a k e account of

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f

danger t o l i f e and

proper ty .

I n p a r t i c u l a r t h e Crolm

ccntended t h a t t h e second

f i r e f n t h e Day

Cent re was

i n an

i n t e g r a l p a r t

t h e h o s p i t a l

a t a t ime when

t h e premises were v i r t u a l l y d e s e r t e d ,

making

probable t h a t a

f i r e would

q u i t e o u t of

c o n t r o l be fo re

anybody became

aware o f i t s e x i s t e n c e .

These f a c t s were n o t

d i s p u t e d by t h e respondent

e i t h e r on h i s t r i a l o r on

appeal .

The f a c t s ,

course ,

had a l r e a d y been proved i n evidence hhen

t h e conduct

t h e t r i a l changed a s i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r .

There

was

r e a l l y oiily one m a t t e r which was

a s s e r t e d by t h e Crov:n

and

n o t

accep ted by t h e respondent on t h e appea l ,

namely t h a t t h e

l i g h t i n g of

t h e f i r e s was

a p o t e n t i a l danger t o l i f e .

o f

t h e view t h a t t h e t r i a l judge

was

c c r r e c t i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e

respondent ' s	condxct anoilnted t o a clanger t o t h e l i v e s of
people.

When

t h e course of

t h e t r i a l changed, t h e Crcrm

f u r n i s h e d

m a t e r i a l t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge

way

s t a t e m e n t s from

t h e

b a r t a b l e .

Inc luded was t h e f a c t t h a t t h e respondent

had been

r e l e a s e d frcm

p r i s o n

i n Western

A u s t r a l i a

A p r i l

1978,

having been

sentenced i n J anua ry 1976, meaning t h a t he had

se rved a

p e r i o d of

two

y e a r s and t h r e e months.

La t e r ,

a n t e c e d e n t s

r e p o r t

was

f u r n i s h e d

s t a t i n g t h a t t h e

accused

had

been

r e l e a s e d on

A p r i l

1978

a f t e r s e r v i n g two

y e a r s ,

f i v e

months

a t h r e e y e a r

sen tence .

When Mr.

Liv ings tone ,

p sycho log i s t ,

gave ev idence on

beha l f

o f t h e respondent

r e f e r r e d t o t h e respondent

hav ing

been ve ry aware t h a t he had been i n g a o l f o r two yea r s ,

seven

months

and t h i r t e e n days.

pre-sentence

r e p o r t

r eques t ed by

t h e s en t cnc ing judge

s t a t e d t h a t t h e respondent

had

hcen

conv ic t ed on

two

coun t s o f

a r s o n on

1 3 J a n u a r y 1976 and

sentenced t o t h r e c y e a r s imprisoament on each,

t o be

served

concur ren t ly .

H e was imprisoned a t t h e Fremant le Gaol

and

t h e n

t r a n s f e r r e d

t o t h e \ ~ ' o o l o o r o ~

T r a i n i n g

Centre.

The

sen t enc ing judge

t h a t

occas ion had

d e c l i n e d t o s p e c i f y a

non-garole

per iod.

The

p r e c i s e

p a r t i c . l l a r s

th i s p rev ious

con14ction

o r c o n v i c t i o n s were

n o t

f u r n i s h e d

t o t h e

sen tenc ing

judge by t h e Crcl:n

a t t h e t r i a l .

I n t h i s r e s p e c t a l s o I n:n of

t . r e

vieb. t h a t t h e Crolim

f a i l e d p r o p e r l y

t o d i sche rge i t s

fundamental

&xty t o g i v e t h e c o u r t f u l l a s s i s t a n c e .

P r i o r

conv ic t ions

t h c acc:lsed

were

very

m a t e r i n l

c o n s i d e r a t i o n

f o r t h e

e x c r c i s e

t h e

s e n t c n c i n g d i s c r e t i o n .

A s e v e n t s t u r n e d

o u t t h e respondent

admi t ted t h c p rev ious

c o n v i c t i c n s

and

s e n t e n c e s i n r e s p e c t

o f f enccs

a::?zre~~tl!.

committed i n hg!st 197 j,

and a l though h i s counsel indicated

t h a t a t an

a p ~ r c p r i a t e

s t a g e

~ i o u l d

f u r n i s h

t o t l ic

sen tenc ing

judge

t h e reriiarks

passed by

t h e Ves t A u s t r a l i a n judge

when

sen tenc ing t h e accused on t h e p r i o r occas ion ,

such remarks

rr.cre

never . f u r n i s h e d t o t h e

s e n t e n c i n g judge,

and

d c s p i t e

I efer ~ n c e

b e i n g madc

t o t h i s appa ren t o v e r s i g h t

a t t h e t r i a l t h e y were

never

f u r n i s h e d t o t h i s Court

a t t h e h e a r i n g o f

t h e appeal .

The

consequences

a r e t h a t t h i s Court

i s i n a

s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n

o f n o t conv ic t ions ;

having

ve ry p r e c i s e

p a r t i c u l a r s of

t h e p rev ious

T h i s i s a

ve ry u n s a t i s f a c t o r y

s i t u a t i o n ,

1vher.e

t h e Crown

appea ls t o t h i s Court

a g a i n s t t h e inadequacy of

sentence.

The Cro~tn

h a s a

du ty t o t h i s Court

a l s o t o s ee t h a t

is f u l l y informed on

a l l r e l e v a n t m a t t e r s ,

and

i s so

obvious a s t o b e unnecessary t o s t a t e t h a t p r i o r

convic t io i l s

f o r o fcences o f

s i m i l a r n a t u r e

a r e extremely

impor tan t

t h e qvcs t ion of

penalty i n t h i s appeal .

The

common

f a c t s which

emerged i n ~ ' a r i o l l s

vays

b e f o r c

t h e l e a r n e d

sen tenc ing judge

rr-ere

t h a 5 e n r l p i n Janiiary

1976

i n t h e Supreme

Court cf

izcs te rn A u s t r a l i a

i n Pcrt!l

t h e resnondent '

was

convic ted and sen tenced t o t h r e e y e a r s im?risonincnt

on t1,o

coun t s o f

arson.

The

sen tenc ing judge

a c c e p t c l t h o s e f a c t s

and

t h e respondent

h a s n o t

contended

o the r~ . . i s e on

t h e h e a r i n g

o f t h i s appea l .	I	r e p e a t t h a t t h e r e *was*	a p a u c i t y of	ev idence	;
, ,

about

this

impor t an t i s s u e and it

1:as

t h e C r o ~ n ' s c l ~ t y

t c ensure '

t h a t t h e

c o u r t v a s f u l l y informed.

The

c e r e r e c i t a l o f

t h e f c c t s of

t h e o f f e n c e s nob

under

rcvier .

an?

t h 2 r e sponden t ' s

~ n t e c e d c n t s

1:arrnnt

ccmsidera t ion

o f s ~ b s t a n t i a l p r - sc r ibec l f o r t h c offe.lce

g a o l

sentences f o r each ~ f f c n c e . The nrsimxm

o f

a r son

a s chnrged

i n t h e f i r s t

count

is f o x r t e e n

years :

t h e rnasim-[:U p e n a l t y

prcscr ibec! f c r

t h e s u b s t i t x t e d

second

coont

i s f i v e pears .

beha l f

of t h e respondent it 1.2s ccntendec!

a t t h e t r i n l

t h a t he

had

rL!mber

r e c o g n i s a 5 l e dees - sca t e l

psychc log ica l

pro5lcms a n l t h ~ t

it ~ . c ~ l c !

n o t be i n h i s b e s t

interests t o be

sen tenced t o a terh of

imprisonment.

c o n s i d e r a b l e body

p s y c h i a t r i c

and

psychologica l

m a t e r i a l

was

p l a c e d

be fo re

t h e

s en t enc ing judge

i n t h i s r e spec t .

There rrras a l s o some

evidence

o f

g e n e r a l good c h a r a c t e r .

Before t h e s en t enc ing judge

t h e

respondent

a l s o o f f e r e d t o make

r e s t i t u t i o n o f

t h e sum

$3800.00

a t ' t h e r a t e of

$25.00

p e r week,

p rov ided t h a t he was

a t l i b e r t y ,

n o t i n custody,

and

a S l e t o g a i n s a t i s f a c t o r y

employment.

i n d i c a t e d ,

th rough h i s counsel ,

t h a t i f t h e

t r i a l judge

v:as

d i sposed t o o r d e r h i s c o n d i t i o n a l r e l e a s e ,

repayment

t h e c o s t o f t h e damage

could be a

cond i t i on of

t h e r e l e a s e

s u b j e c t t o h i s a b i l i t y t o pay.

The

c o s t of

t h e

damage

a s a s s e r t e d by

t h e res2ondcntf .s c o ~ n s e l

v:as

n o t accep tcd

b3' t h e Croxin. l o s s a s s e s s o r had

The

ev idence a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Cro1:n

was t h a t a

a s s e s s e d t h e

damage

a t 520,336.00.

T h i s wes

an e s t i m a t e of unfertalcen.

t h e

c o s t o f

r e p a i r s b e f o r e

any

r e p a i r s Isere

The sen tenc ing jrtdge

made no f i n d i n g cf

f a c t about

t h e c o s t of

r e p z i r s though

seems

i m p l i c i t f r c n ~

t h e t e rms

t h e s e n t e n c e s imposed

and

i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e t e r m s o f

t h e

c o n d i t i o n a l

r e l e a s e

t h e respondent ,

t h a t he

a c c e p t e e t h c

f i g u r c o f

$3500.00

a s s e r t e d by t h e respondent.

I n my

view t h e

ev idence \\w.s

t o o f l i m s y on

t h i s m a t t e r and

it rias

s u r e l y a

r e l e v a n t

c o n s i d e r a t i o n

f o r t h e

t r i a l judge.

The

Cr0v.n

should

have

been i n n p o s i t i o n

and

s h o t ~ l d

have dischcr,?ed i t s d ~ t y

t o

in form t h e c c ~ r t

e i t h e r by

ev idence o r f a c t s accep tcd by

t h e

accused person o f

t h e c o s t o f

t h e damage t o t h e Red Cross

premises

r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e f irst count.

I cannot over-

emphasise t h e h igh duty' on t h e Crown

i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s t o

render

t h e utmost

a s s i s t s n c e t o a

s e n t e n c i n g judge

i n h i s

admin i s t r ae ion

c f

t h e

c r i m i n a l

law.

I n endeavouring t o s t r i k e a ba lance

Sctween t h e v a r i o u s

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which

s e n t e n c i n g judge

must

t a k e i n t o account,

his IIonour gave cons ide rab le weight t o t h e respondent ' s

p r o s p e c t s

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n .

H e s a i d t h a t

t h e

o n l y t r u e

s o l u t i o n l a y i n t h e p rov i s ion

an oppor tun i ty

t o t h e

respondent

making

a u s e f u l l i f e f o r h imse l f .

F o r t h e s e

r e a s o n s he

imposed

sen tences \~4iich can o n l y be

desc r ibed

a s

ex t remely merc i fu l .

The

Crown

lias

contended t h a t t h e degree

o f

l e n i e n c y

i n h e r e n t i n t h e

s e n t e n c e s

r e n d e r s

them

inadequa te

and i n a p p r o p r i a t e ,

having

r ega rd

t o t h e g r a v i t y

t h c o f f ences .

I n my

view t h e r e fo rma t ive

a s p e c t h a s been

g iven t o o mich

weigh6

and

i s

d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e

t o t h e

c i r c u m s t a ~ l c e s

t h e

o f f e n c e s and

t h e respondent ' s

an tecedents .

Xor

a r e t h e

p r o s p e c t s o f

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n

suppor ted

t h e psychologica l

and p s y c h i a t r i c evidence.

The

respondent

p re sen ted

a s a .

person

wi th

' recognisable

p e r s o n a l i t y

d i s o r d e r s ,

b u t

e o u a l l y

h e does n o t

appear t o have

l e a r n e d any

l e s s o n from h i s

c o n v i c t i o n s

and

sen tences i n Western

A u s t r a l i a

i n January

1076.

One

i s l e f t w i th t h e g e n e r a l impress ion t h a t ,

g iven t h e comb-

i n a t i o n

a l c h o l i c i n f l u e n c e

and

resentment

a t h i s f e l l o l s human

b e i n g s , t h e

respondent

i s a j i i t e

l i k e l y t o o f f end

aga in

i n a

s i m i l a r way.

H e h a s never

expressed

any

c o n t r i t i o n f o r what

he -did.

When

speaking t o t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n one of

t h e

t a p e d t e l ephone conve r sa t ions he mainta ined t h a t he was n o t

a t a l l s o r r y f o r what

he had done.

There was

n o t h i n g i n t h e

p sycho log ica l

and

p s y c h i a t r i c ev idence

c a l l e d on

h i s beha l f

which

i n d i c a t e d any

remorse

o r c o n t r i t i o n f o r h i s condnct

d e s p i t e

v e r y

e x t e n s i v e

c o u n s e l l i n g

s i n c e

h i s

r e l e a s e

from

p r i s o n i n A p r i l

1978

and

snbsequent t o h i s a r r e s t on t h e

p r e s e n t

charges .

The

r e s u l t oP

t h e s en t ences imposed was

n o t t o p rov ide

condign

punishment,

n o r t o r e f l e c t t h e g e n e r a l moral

sense o f

t h e community (Channon v. -

R. (1978) 20 A.L.R.

1).

I n my view

t h e

s en t enc ing

d i s c r e t i o n h a s m i s c a r r i e d

and this

Court

should

i n t e r v e n e .

A s t h i s Court

s a i d i n The

Queen

P r i n d a b l e

(un repor t ed dec i s ion ,

d e l i v e r e d i n Brisbane on

9 March

1979)

t h e review by

a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

o f

s en t enc ing judgc ' s

d i s c r e t i o n

t o suspend

sen tences

i n v o l v e s t h e

same

p r i n c i p l e s

a s a review of sen tence i t s e l f ( ~ h c

t h e j u d i c i a l

d i s c r e t i o n t o impose t h e head

Oueen v. Shueard (1972) 4 S.A.S.R.

36 a t

43) and i f t h e sen tence a s a rvhole i s seen t o b e so dis-

p ropon t iona t e t o t h c

se i l tence 1:hich

t h e c i rcumstances

r e q ~ ~ i r e

a s t o i n d i c a t e

e r r o r of

principle,

t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

should

in t e rvene .

There 1:erc

t1r.o

s e p a r a t e i n v a s i o n s of

p r o ~ e r t y

cc.mittcc!

on t h e s en t enc ing judge

sao,e

n igh t .

@ne m a t t e r t o be

cons idered is v:l~ether t h c

1,-as

c o r r e c t

i n o r e e r i n g t h a t t h e

s en t ences be

served

concur ren t ly ,

p a r t i c u l z r l y

a s t hey

were

c u i t e

d i s t i n c t

scn tences .

They were covmi t ted on t h e samc n i g h t i n t h e same

l o c a l i t y and rchen

t h e respondent

rras ilnder t h e i n f l u c n c c

i n t o x i c a t i n g l i c ~ o r . I

t h i n k

t h c s en t enc ing j.lee

m y l s t

have

t a k e n t h e s e b e s e r v e d conc- l r rent ly

m a t t e r s

i n t o

a c c o ~ l n t

i n o r d e r i n g th.?t

t h c

s en t ences

and t h a t he

v a s no t

i n e r r o r i n doing

so.

For t h e r ea sons i n d i c a t e d ,

hor\.ever,

n o t t h i n k t h r t t h i s

Court

should make

any o r d e r i n r e s p e c t of

t h e s en t ence on t h e

s u b s t i t u t e d

second count.

I n r e l a t i o n t c t h e first count,

one

r e q u i r e d t o c o n s i d e r what

s en t ence ~ o u l d

r e p r e s e n t

t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e ,

du ly

p r o p o r t i o n a t e

aad

p rope r ly

balanced

sen tence

( p e r Smi thers J .

i n Andcrson v.

R, (1977) 1 9 A.L.X.

212

a t 2211..

I n my

vier,. t h e head

s c ~ t e n c e

t h e f irst

count h a s

unappea lab le and should s tand .

I n o rde r t o proviile an

a p p r o p r i a t e ,

duly

p r o p o r t i o n a t e

and proper ly

bali\llced

sen t ence

t h i n k it

i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o s p e c i f y a

pe r iod

ktio

y e a r s ,

sis months du r ing which t h e respondent \$ill

n o t Ilk

eligible

f o r paro le .

do n o t thinlc t h a t t h c s en t enc ing

should

h a - c suspended

t h e o n e r a t i c n of

any

g o r t i o n

o r tllf:

r.espondcntt.c

I n t h e I-csuli; I v:ol~ld alicxi t h c apncal 2nd hl.r:rr

i n s~!bsti t~!: jon f o r t h c s en t encc imposcd oil

t h e f l l.,;

cc:Tnt

c.lc

~-cspcnc;c;l. bc inr.riscncc: for a rcrird of f r , ~ ; ~

. -:

7-.c:

:.cr.

~ ; n - i t i ~ s

;..:,C

r . c ~ ~ l c i

s r c c : i ~ - 7

n c r i n i pi

t1.c

7.-r

I .. CL\

c l c r . t k ~

<'S!,-;

!-.c

x\liic:~ 11e x,. :- l l

::of

!?c c i i y ; ' - i r

:PI

I	c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s and t h e e i g h t e e n prereeding

pages a r e a t r u e copy of t h e Reasons f o r jlldgment

h e r e i n

h i s Honour

M r .

J u s t i c e Gal lop,

Assoc ia te .

27 June 1979

[1979] FCA 83

28 Jun 1979