Tomlins v The Queen

The case of *Tomlins v The Queen* concerned an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on the applicant by a sentencing judge in the Northern Territory. The applicant had been convicted on multiple counts, and the central dispute revolved around the validity of an aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed by the sentencing judge.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for certain counts on the indictment, contrary to section 52(3) of the *Sentencing Act 1995* (NT). Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the presence of a violent offence (count 5) on the indictment precluded the imposition of an aggregate sentence under section 52(1) of the Act, as stipulated by section 52(3).

The Court reasoned that section 52(3) of the *Sentencing Act* expressly states that the power to impose an aggregate sentence under section 52(1) does not apply where one of the offences joined in the indictment is a violent offence. The facts presented indicated that count 5 on the indictment involved violent assaults. Therefore, the sentencing judge had erred by imposing an aggregate sentence that encompassed counts 1, 2, 3, and 6, as this was impermissible given the inclusion of the violent offence on the same indictment. The Court applied the principle that an aggregate sentence can only be imposed if all offences joined in the indictment are non-violent.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing an aggregate sentence. Consequently, the aggregate sentence was set aside.