SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Tully v The Queen |
Citation: | [2016] ACTCA 11 |
Hearing Date: | 24 March 2016 and written submissions |
DecisionDate: | 27 April 2016 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Penfold and North JJ |
Decision: | Leave granted to appeal against the nonparole period. Sentence dates confirmed or amended in accordance with [36]. Nonparole period of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment fixed. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Re-sentence – Concurrence of sentences |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5606 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) s 74 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 37N, 37O |
Cases Cited: | Allred v The Queen (2015) ACTLR 325 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 |
Parties: | Cameron Flynn Tully (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) Mr S Drumgold (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 55 of 2014 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 3 October 2014 Case Title: R v Tully (No 3) Citation: [2014] ACTSC 275 |
MURRELL CJ AND NORTH J:
On 6 June 2014, the appellant was found guilty of 18 counts of historical child sexual abuse. On 3 October 2014, he was sentenced to a total term of 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of nine years’ imprisonment (62% of the total sentence). The appellant appealed against the convictions.
On 17 February 2016, the Court set aside the verdicts and sentences relating to counts 1, 2, 3 and 5 and substituted verdicts of not guilty on those counts. Otherwise, the appeal was dismissed: Tully v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 4.
As a result, the Court must consider the structure of the remaining sentences. The nonparole period should be varied.
At a directions hearing on 24 March 2016, it was agreed that the resentencing exercise would proceed on the written summaries of argument that had been filed.
Remaining sentences
The following table sets out the sentences that were imposed by the trial judge.
Count Term of sentence Original dates 19 2 years 8 months 6.6.14 - 5.2.17 21 9 months 6.8.16 - 5.5.17 22 14 months 6.9.16 - 5.11.17 23 2 years 6.7.16 - 5.7.18 1 2 years 6.7.16 - 5.7.18 2 18 months 6.7.17 - 5.1.19 3 2 years 6 months 6.1.17 - 5.7.19 5 3 years 9 months 6.4.17 - 5.1.21 7 12 months 6.7.20 - 5.7.21 9 14 months 6.11.20 - 5.1.22 11 18 months 6.2.21 - 5.8.22 12 3 years 6.5.21 - 5.5.24 13 3 years 10 months 6.7.21 - 5.5.25 14 14 months 6.10.24 - 5.12.25 15 9 months 6.6.25 - 5.3.26 16 14 months 6.8.25 - 5.10.26 17 4 years 6.10.24 - 5.10.28 18 14 months 6.10.27 - 5.12.28 NPP: 7 years…
Continue reading Tully v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Tully v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 11
- Case
- [2016] ACTCA 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had erred in fixing the non-parole periods for the applicants, particularly in light of the principle that sentences for different offences should run concurrently. The court was required to consider the cumulative effect of the sentences and the appropriate duration of the non-parole periods to ensure they were just and reflected the totality of the offending.
The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the original sentencing had resulted in an incorrect calculation of the non-parole periods. The court amended the sentence dates in accordance with its findings and ultimately fixed a non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months' imprisonment for the applicants. This outcome reflects the court's assessment of the appropriate punishment and the totality principle in sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave granted to appeal against the nonparole period. Sentence dates confirmed or amended in accordance with [36]. Nonparole period of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment fixed.
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.