The Queen v Ruwhiu

Case [2023] ACTCA 18

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:  The Queen v Ruwhiu
Citation:  [2023] ACTCA 18
Hearing Date:  2 March 2023
Decision Date:  3 May 2023
Before:  Loukas-Karlsson, Baker and Rangiah JJ
Decision:  The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Prosecution appeal against sentence – whether non-parole period manifestly inadequate – relationship between head sentence and non-parole period – relevant considerations for fixing the non-parole period – whether the sentencing judged erred in relying heavily on the respondent’s

prospects of rehabilitation, the burden of deportation and time in
custody – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:  Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 12A
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 310, 311
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37E
Cases Cited:  Allouch v The Queen [2018] VSCA 244
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Carr v R [2020] NSWCCA 214
Chifuntwe v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 12
CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9;
256 CLR 346
Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367
Director of Public Prosecutions v Earle [2023] ACTSC 93
DPP v Josefski [2005] VSCA 265; 13 VR 85
Guden v R [2010] VSCA 196
Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Inge v The Queen [1999] HCA 55; 199 CLR 295
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600
Ngata v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 18
O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Paterson v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 273
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Abdi [2016] QCA 298
R v Atai (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 272
R v Butters [2019] ACTSC 143
R v Chifuntwe (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 220
R v Coleman [2021] ACTSC 349
R v GBD [2018] QCA 340
R v Hagen [2022] ACTSC 362

R v Hall [2017] NSWCCA 313; 271 A Crim R 162 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Flowers [2014] ACTCA 13

R v Jackson [2021] ACTSC 120
R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256
R v Lau [2020] ACTSC 120
R v Leka [2017] SASCFC 77
R v Lutze [2020] ACTSC 121
R v Ruwhiu [2022] ACTSC 290
R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122
R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36
R v Norris; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 27
R v Parker (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 13
R v Ruwhiu [2022] ACTSC 290
R v Shrestha [1991] HCA 26; 173 CLR 48
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9
The…

Continue reading The Queen v Ruwhiu

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The Queen v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18
Case
[2023] ACTCA 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen (Prosecution) appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Ruwhiu, by a sentencing judge. The core of the dispute concerned whether the non-parole period fixed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate, and the relationship between the head sentence and the non-parole period. The appeal was heard by Loukas-Karlsson, Baker, and Rangiah JJ.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing a non-parole period that was manifestly inadequate, and what relevant considerations should be taken into account when determining the relationship between a head sentence and a non-parole period. Specifically, the Court considered whether the sentencing judge had placed undue reliance on certain factors when setting the non-parole period.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's determination. The reasoning applied by the Court would have involved an analysis of the principles governing sentencing appeals, particularly concerning the adequacy of non-parole periods and the discretion afforded to sentencing judges. The Court would have considered the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the established legal principles for setting both the head sentence and the non-parole period.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.