The Queen v Potts

The Queen appealed against a sentence imposed by the primary judge on Mr Potts in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the primary judge had erred in finding special circumstances that justified imposing concurrent sentences of imprisonment.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal concerned the interpretation of sections 70 and 72 of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT). Specifically, the court had to determine the meaning of "existing sentence" and "primary sentence" when multiple sentences of imprisonment were imposed, and whether the sequential operation of section 72 was a prerequisite for imposing concurrent sentences in such circumstances.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the primary judge had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT). The court held that the Act did not mandate a sequential operation of section 72 in all cases involving multiple sentences. Instead, the judge retained discretion to impose concurrent sentences where special circumstances justified it, even where an existing sentence was already in place. The court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of those special circumstances.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.