Legal Research
Cases
Travini v Starczewski

Travini v Starczewski

Case [2009] ACTSC 123 24 September 2009

Type to search within this case.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

RICHARD JOHN TRAVINI v WOJTEK STARCZEWSKI
[2009] ACTSC 123 (24 September 2009)

CRIMINAL LAW – drink driving – s 19 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) – disparity in sentencing – non-conviction orders – s 17 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear an appeal – whether order “imposed” by the Magistrates Court – s 208(1)(d), Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) – meanings of “an order against the defendant” and “an order on the defendant” – ss 208(1)(c), 113, 114 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) – whether the disqualification of a driver’s licence is such an “order” – s 32 and 33 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear an appeal in against conviction – s 208(b) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 17 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – meaning of “conviction” at common law – reinterpretation of s 208(b) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) to encompass s 17 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – ss 22(4), 30 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear an appeal – whether order “imposes” a penalty – s 208(1)(c) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) – ss 22(4), 30 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)

Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), ss 4C, 19, 32, 33
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 14, 17, 29, 30
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), Pt 3.6, Div 3.10.3, ss 113, 114, 208, 219B, 244
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 17, 149, 161
Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT), s 68
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 315A, 375
Justices Act 1902 (NSW), s 80

Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Act 1982 (ACT)

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 22, 30

Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance 1930 (ACT) ss 113, 129
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2000 (ACT) Div 3.7, s 45

Fox R and Freiberg A, Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria (2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 1999)

George v The Queen [1986] Tas R 49
R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
Leeth v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 174 CLR 455
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Green v Webb [2006] WASC 71
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Barac v Thexton [2008] ACTSC 137
Sparham-Souter and Anor v Town and County Developments (Essex) Ltd and Anor [1976] 1 QB 858
Scott v Wynants [2009] ACTSC 62
Forbutt v Blake (1981) 51 FLR 465
R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400
Pilkington v The Queen [1955] Tas SR 144
Gower v Ross [1959] SASR 278
R v Stewart [1960] VR 106
R v Murphy (1979) 1 A Crim R 398
Cooper v Pryce (1984) 73 FLR 1
Karoly v Brown and Anor

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Travini v Starczewski

Details

AGLC: Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123
Case: [2009] ACTSC 123
Decision Date: 24 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Travini v Starczewski is a case concerning the sentencing of the appellant, Travini, for a drink driving offence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which was required to decide several legal issues, including the interpretation of statutes and the jurisdictional scope of the court to hear appeals. The core legal issues involved the interpretation of sections 208(1)(c) and (d) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), and sections 17 and 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether certain sentencing orders were "imposed" by the Magistrates Court, and if so, whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against such orders.

The Supreme Court found that the disqualification of a driver’s licence could be considered an "order against the defendant" under section 208(1)(c) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). Additionally, the court clarified that the term "conviction" under section 208(b) of the same Act should be reinterpreted to encompass sentencing orders under section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). This reinterpretation was necessary to ensure consistency with the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The Supreme Court also held that the order reducing the period of licence suspension was "imposed" within the meaning of section 208(1)(c) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). Consequently, the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the appellant. It set aside the fine imposed by the Learned Magistrate and substituted it with a fine of $100. The court also set aside the order reducing the period of licence suspension, reinstating the minimum period of three months. Finally, the court set aside the order for costs made by the Learned Magistrate and made no order for costs of the appeal or the proceedings before the Magistrates Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be upheld.

2. The conviction of the appellant be confirmed.

3. The fine imposed by the Learned Magistrate be set aside and, in lieu, a fine of $100 be imposed.

4. The order of the Learned Magistrate reducing the period of suspension of the appellant’s licence to drive be set aside and the period of licence suspension be reduced to the minimum period of three months.

5. The order for costs made by the Learned Magistrate be set aside and there be no order for costs of the appeal or of the proceedings before the Magistrates Court .

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123

Most Recent Citation

Financial Integrity Group Pty Limited v Farmer [2009] ACTSC 143

Cases citing this decision · 27 of 27 shown

Beath v McCurley
[2018] ACTCA 48

…NSWSC 33; 77 NSWLR 189 Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1 Scott v Wynants [2009] 4 ACTSC 62 Stoehr v Meyer [2016] ACTSC 144 Travini v Starczeski [2009] ACTSC 123; 169 ACTR 1…
Mearns v Commissioner for Fair Trading (Occupational Regulation)
[2016] ACAT 89 Para 20

…f the filing of the Notice of Appeal. For other such consequences, that would seem to me to be also stayed, see Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123 (at [20]-[21]). (emphasis added) 27. In my view, this is not inconsistent with what the majority held in Hadba v The Queen for it does not seem to me that the releva…
Parkinson v Alexander
[2016] ACTSCFC 1 Para 1

…At common law, the term “conviction” has a “wide and somewhat equivocal meaning”: Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 ( Travini ) at [48]. The answer to the question of what amounts to a conviction depends upon the context in which the question is asked: Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 per Dawson and McHu…
Burow v The Queen
[2015] ACTCA 61

…220 CLR 129 Rose v Snape [2000] ACTSC 115 Scott v Wynants (2009) 4 ACTLR 13 Sleiman v Murray (2009) 231 FLR 224 Spurr v Fishpool (1972) 20 FLR 174 Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 Walsh v Law Society of New South Wales (1999) 198 CLR 73 Westbrook v The Queen (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Cris…
Preston v Carnall
[2015] ACTSC 325 Para 1

…lear that Ms Preston was seeking to appeal against conviction, notwithstanding that she had pleaded guilty. As I pointed out in Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 at 9; [38], after reviewing the authorities, a person can, notwithstanding the entry of a plea of guilty, nevertheless appeal against conviction unde…
Dalziell v Booth
[2015] ACTCA 27 Para 1

…Those are ordinary consequences of findings of guilt and convictions: Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 at 14; [85]. It may be that lesser severity is given regard by such agencies for findings of guilt which lead to a non-conviction order under s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act (2005) (ACT), but the fact is…
Burow v Hoyer
[2015] ACTSC 21 Para 1

…I considered the matter again in Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 and (at 11; [60]) confirmed my view that, where the automatic disqualification was for the default period because the court made no order setting a shorter period of disqualification, the disqualification was effected by the legislation, not by…
Stephanie Snaidero v Brooke Amy Crampton and Bridget O'Sullivan (No 2)
[2014] ACTSC 367 Para 1

…e imposition of a sentence. Imposition, so far as sentences is concerned, is a complex issue as is clear from decisions such as Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 at 1.…
James Shearer v Jessica Gilmore
[2014] ACTSC 148 Para 1

…It seems to me that, as I pointed out in Travini v Starczewski (2009) 167 ACTR 1 at 11; [55], that such an interpretation is apparently supported by a construction of the legislation that supports the human right recognised under s 22(4) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), though, I recognise that there might be regarded as a…
Roseby v Harman
[2014] ACTSC 125 Para 1

…tencing Act are concerned, the court is required to consider those factors, as noted by Nield AJ in Gordon v Reddin [2013] ACTSC 87 at [15]. See also Travini v Starczewski (2009) 235 FLR 14 at 28; [94].…
Sladic v Proud
[2013] ACTSC 232

…) 33 WN(NSW) 106 R v Ryan (1988) 33 A Crim R 288 R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Williscroft [1975] VR 292 Sutherland v Luchetti [2013] ACTSC 196 Travini v Starczewski (2010) 169 ACTR 1 Wong v The Queen (2009) 207 CLR 584 Woodlee v Callaghan [2013] ACTSC 60…
Bloxham v Wyte
[2013] ACTSC 151 Para 1

…In Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123, Refshauge J suggested that “conviction” as used in provisions creating appeals from the Magistrates Court could probably be read as including a finding of guilt even if no conviction was recorded.…
Emily Louise Slawson v Damien Kinnane
[2013] ACTSC 3 Para 1

…ealing against the conviction as is now the case in every State and Territory in Australia. See the authorities I have cited in Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 at 9; [38].…
Dawson v Coles
[2012] ACTSC 147 Para 1

…ct of appeals. In particular, the statutory disqualification of a person from holding or obtaining a licence is not appellable: Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1. As I held in that case, however, where the automatic disqualification has been reduced by the Court, that decision is appellable, as here.…
Darren Douglas Powell v Darren Andrew Fitzroy, Ben David Waller and SHAUN PINE
[2012] ACTSC 131 Para 1

…oes not affect the conviction and it is the conviction which has revoked his parole and not the sentence that has been imposed: Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1. That was in the context of a case where the question of what was a penalty and what amounted to a penalty was under consideration. In that case, I c…
Matruglio v Garrett
[2012] ACTSC 110 Para 1

…That he had pleaded guilty of these offences is, in the circumstances, no bar to his appeal against conviction: Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 at 9; [38].…
Newham v Cogle
[2012] ACTSC 76 Para 1

…208 of that division sets out the decisions of the Magistrates Court from which an appeal may be taken to this court. I held in Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 at [59]–[64], that this included a decision by the Magistrates Court to reduce the period of automatic disqualification from holding or obtaining a d…
Sheather v Bishop
[2012] ACTSC 77

…Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) (2010) 5 ACTLR 151 Scott v Wynants (2009) 4 ACTLR 13 Goundar v Goddard (2009) 240 FLR 176 Shires v Edwards [2011] ACTSC 132 Newham v Cogle [2012] ACTSC 76 Police v Waller [2011] SASC 23…
Hugg v Driessen
[2012] ACTSC 46

…Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1…
Ceric v Reid and Liosatos
[2012] ACTSC 81 Para 1

…ver Licensing) Act . That prevents it from being the subject of an appeal to this Court, as it is not imposed by the Court: see Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 at 6–9; [13]–[35], 11; [60]–[62]. As such, there can be no appeal against the decision.…
Licciardello v McPherson
[2012] ACTSC 31

…Campbell v Fortey (1987) 24 A Crim R 386 Theodorelos v Nexus Projects Pty Ltd [2009] ACTSC 149 Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400 R v Coffey (2003) 6 VR 543 DPP v Greene (2003) 58 NSWLR 252 Wade v Evans (2003) 180 FLR 290 Lynch v Hargrave [1971] VR 99…
Christopher Mateta v Katherine McDONOUGH; And ANDREW McKENZIE
[2011] ACTSC 196 Para 1

…imposed by the court, but by virtue of the provisions of the Act itself. This means it cannot be the subject of an appeal. See Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123 (at [13] to [35]).…
Shires v Edwards
[2011] ACTSC 132 Para 1

…As I said in Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1 (at 12; [68]), I have jurisdiction in this case to deal with the appeal, even though it only related to the period of the licence disqualification, because the Magistrates Court reduced the period of disqualification.…
In the Matter of An Application for Bail By Mohamed Osman
[2010] ACTSC 81 Para 1

…ayed by virtue of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. For other such consequences, that would seem to me to be also stayed, see Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123 (at [20]-[21]).…
Ledson v Taylor
[2010] ACTSC 42 Para 19

…63 of the Road Transport (General) Act and ss 32, 33 and 34 of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT). See also Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123 (at [19], [60]).…
Spatolisano v Hyde
[2009] ACTSC 161 Para 1

…a non-conviction order under s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) instead of the convictions and fines. As I said in Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123 (at [54]-[56]), where such an order is sought, the appeal is, in a relevant (though perhaps not colloquial or “category”) sense, an appeal against co…
Financial Integrity Group Pty Limited v Farmer
[2009] ACTSC 143 Para 1

…sions. This was an approach perhaps taken in Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101, though I and others have criticised that decision: Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123 (at [66]).…

View all 27 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 31 of 31 shown

R v Coffey
[2012] NSWDC 282 Para 1

…Of course, the courts have limited the circumstances under which a conviction may successfully be challenged on appeal: R v Coffey (2003) 6 VR 543 (at 545-6). In this case, no evidence was sought to be led or submission made to show that the offence was not one known to the law, that the appellant did not apprecia…
Sleiman v Murray
[2009] ACTSC 82 Para 1

…I have, however, expressed my doubts elsewhere about this decision: Sleiman v Murray [2009] ACTSC 82, a concern expressed by Connolly J in Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1. I noted in Sleiman v Murray , too, that the decision in Kelly v Apps seemed to be inconsistent with what the High Court had held in Reid v Howa…
Scott v Wynants
[2009] ACTSC 62 Para 1

…t Act was a source of jurisdiction. That must be correct where the court does not reduce the default period of a disqualification ( Scott v Wynants ) [2009] ACTSC 62 (at [23])) for the disqualification is imposed not by the Court but by ss 32 and 33 of the Alcohol and Drugs Act. The court may reduce the length of…
Talukder v Dunbar
[2009] ACTSC 42 Para 1

…mmon in the Magistrates Court on a plea of guilty to such matters, given orally from the bar table by the appellant’s lawyer. See Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 (at [17]-[25]).…
R v Fearnside
[2009] ACTCA 3 Para 1

…reviewed by a higher court. I do not consider that the perhaps somewhat restricted approach to s 30 in Casey v Alcock [2009] ACTCA 1 or R v Fearnside [2009] ACTCA 3 are inconsistent with my findings.…
Casey v Alcock
[2009] ACTCA 1 Para 1

…have convictions and sentences reviewed by a higher court. I do not consider that the perhaps somewhat restricted approach to s 30 in Casey v Alcock [2009] ACTCA 1 or R v Fearnside [2009] ACTCA 3 are inconsistent with my findings.…
Barac v Thexton
[2008] ACTSC 137 Para 1

…I had earlier expressed the view in Barac v Thexton [2008] ACTSC 137 that there was no jurisdiction for this court to hear an appeal from the decision of a magistrate in respect of the disqualification of a licence at least where the offence does not attract a sentence of imprisonment for which I relied on s 29 of…
Hondema v Carroll
[2008] WASC 155 Para 1

…8 (at 400); Cooper v Pryce (1984) 73 FLR 1 (at 3); Karoly v Brown and Anor (1988) 91 FLR 15 (at 16-17) ; R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120 (at 121); Hondema v Carroll (2008) 50 MVR 401 (at 404-6).…
Lumby v Cooper
[2008] ACTSC 53 Para 1

…In Lumby v Cooper [2008] ACTSC 53, Penfold J has set out a useful analysis of s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and I gratefully adopt it.…
Kent v Arley
[2007] ACTSC 66 Para 1

…In Kent v Arley [2007] ACTSC 66, Connolly J upheld an appeal against sentence and made instead a non-conviction order. His Honour noted (at [5]):…
Green v Webb
[2006] WASC 71 Para 1

…ently for no apparent reasons. Of course, such reasons will inevitably be brief, having regard to the circumstances of these courts. See Green v Webb [2006] WASC 71 (at [11]).…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25 Para 1

…g to appeal courts when determining sentence appeals is well-known. As was said by Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 (at 370-1):…
R v Osenkowski
[2005] SASC 142

…George v The Queen [1986] Tas R 49 R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 Leeth v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 174 CLR 455 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Green v Webb [2006] WASC 71 Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Barac v Thexton [2008] AC…
Davis v Conroy
[2005] ACTSC 8 Para 1

…he listed criteria but may consider other matters. Section 17(3) makes this explicit following the construction of earlier provisions: Davis v Conroy [2005] ACTSC 8 (at [17]); Talukder v Dunbar .…
Craft v Diebert
[2004] ACTCA 15

…iels (2004) 185 FLR 1 Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1 Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Craft v Diebert [2004] ACTCA 15 R v Cobb (1999) 84 FCR 450 Higgs v The Queen [1999] FCA 1562 Morris v East (1988) 83 ACTR 1 Clearihan v East (unreported, ACTSC, Miles CJ, 2 August 1…
Wong v The Queen
[2001] HCA 64

…George v The Queen [1986] Tas R 49 R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 Leeth v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 174 CLR 455 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Green v Webb [2006] WASC 71 Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Barac v Thexton [2008] AC…
Kelly v Apps
[2000] FCA 687 Para 1

…While s 208 does have the effect of limiting the decision that can be the subject of appeal (subject to Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101), it does not seem to me to evince an intention to limit the parts of a sentence that is to be subject to appeal. It seems to me clear that the disqualification is, in a very real se…
Higgs v The Queen
[1999] FCA 1562 Para 1

…ng available to the sentencing judge not to take that step, having regard to the matters set out in [the predecessor to s 17]”: Higgs v The Queen [1999] FCA 1562.…
Saibai People v State of Queensland
[1999] FCA 158 Para 1

…Although any reduction might be regarded as tinkering ( R v Cobb (1999) 84 FCR 450) that cannot be accepted when the range is already so slight, else there would be no room for appeals at all.…
Maxwell v The Queen
[1996] HCA 46 Para 1

…At common law, the word “conviction” has a wide and somewhat equivocal meaning. As was said by Dawson and McHugh JJ in Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501 (at 507):…
Maxwell v The Queen
[1995] HCATrans 326 Para 1

…At common law, the word “conviction” has a wide and somewhat equivocal meaning. As was said by Dawson and McHugh JJ in Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501 (at 507):…
Ridgeway v the Queen
[1995] HCA 66 Para 1

…noted in Sleiman v Murray , too, that the decision in Kelly v Apps seemed to be inconsistent with what the High Court had held in Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1.…
Everett v the Queen
[1994] HCA 49 Para 1

…und of appeal to which the additional evidence purported to relate may have been the explication of this principle by McHugh J in Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 where his Honour said (at 306):…
Leeth v The Commonwealth
[1992] HCA 29

…986] Tas R 49 R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 Leeth v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 174 CLR 455 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Green v Webb [2006] WASC 71 Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Barac v Thexton [2008] ACTSC 137 Sparham-Soute…
MacAlister v The Queen
[1990] HCA 15 Para 1

…mplies that the conviction precedes and is separate from the sentence. This is consistent with what the High Court said in MacAlister v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 324.…
Cobiac v Liddy
[1969] HCA 26

…dmits of no single, comprehensive answer. Indeed, the answer to the question rather depends upon the context in which it is asked [See Cobaic v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 271]. On the one hand, a verdict of guilty by a jury or a plea of guilty upon arraignment has been said to amount to a conviction. On the other ha…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40

…uiry on an appeal against sentence is identified in the well known passage in the joint reasons of Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ in House v The King [(1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504-505], itself an appeal against sentence. Thus is specific error shown? (Has there been some error of principle? Has the sentencer allowed extr…
Griffiths v The Queen
[1977] HCA 44 Para 1

…See, to the same effect, per Toohey J (at 519) and per Gaudron and Gummow JJ (at 529-30). See also Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293.…
Lowe v R
[1984] HCA 46

…NSWLR 104 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 Leeth v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 174 CLR 455 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Green v Webb [2006] WASC 71 Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Barac v Thexton [2008] ACTSC 137 Sparham-Souter and Anor v Town and County Develop…
[1923] 2 KB 400
[1923] 2 KB 400 Para 1

…The appellant did, however, plead guilty. That is, of course, no bar to an appeal against conviction: R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400 (at 403) ; Pilkington v The Queen [1955] Tas SR 144 (at 145-6); Gower v Ross [1959] SASR 278 (at 281); R v Stewart [1960] VR 106 (at 108); R v Murphy (1979) 1 A Crim R 398 (at 400); Coope…
[1976] 1 QB 858
[1976] 1 QB 858 Para 1

…(Sentencing Act). I do not recant from the view that I expressed there ( Sparham-Souter and Anor v Town and County Developments (Essex) Ltd and Anor [1976] 1 QB 858 (at 869)). Nevertheless, I now know I was wrong in three respects.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 10

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
10, 14, 17, 29, 30 6 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT)
19, 32, 33, 4C 5 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
149, 161, 17 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance 1930 (repealed) (ACT)
113, 129 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
315A, 375 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
22, 30 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Justices Act 1902 (NSW)
80 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
17 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT)
68 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Act 1982 (ACT)
1 mention