Urlich v The Queen

Case [2019] ACTCA 30

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Urlich v The Queen

Citation:

[2019] ACTCA 30

Hearing Date:

7 August 2019

DecisionDate:

29 November 2019

Before:

Murrell CJ, Loukas-Karlsson and Bromwich JJ

Decision:

Appeal allowed. Appellant resentenced

Catchwords:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – In General and Right of Appeal – Appeal against sentence – where appellant convicted of manslaughter – where appellant had made significant admissions in the course of the trial – non-compliance with s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – whether specific error – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – whether resentencing warranted

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 5, 48

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33, 35, 35A, 37, 78, 80D, 80J, 117
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 22A, 23
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 191
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 13A

Cases Cited:

Arman v Wall [2008] ACTSC 61

Butler v Vickers [2011] ACTSC 134
Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209
Cooper v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 57
Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Weidlich [2008] VSCA 203
Gillard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 50
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Irwin v Houlihan [2008] ACTSC 90
JDL v O’Mahony [2011] ACTSC 79
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Lehn v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 225; 93 NSWLR 205
Linggo v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 67
Mansour v Watkins [2014] ACTSC 361
Matzick v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 92
McDonald v Vandervalk (No 1) [2014] ACTSC 67
McLeod v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 59
Merrick v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 264
Miles v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 54
Mulato v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v AA [2017] NSWCCA 84
R v Achurch [2004] NSWCCA 180
R v Brett [2004] NSWCCA 372
R v Cardoso [2003] NSWCCA 15; 137 A Crim R 535
R v Cassidy [2008] ACTSC 13
R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 73
R v England [2001] ACTSC 33
R v Franklin [2012] SASCFC 109; 114 SASR 206
R v Gloginya [2009] NSWSC 1435
R v Governor of Her Majesty’s Gaol at Pentridge; Ex parte Cusmano [1966] VR 583

R v Graham [2000] NSWSC 1033

R v Hansen [2011] SASCFC 10; 206 A Crim R 54
R v Hookey [2004] NSWCCA 223
R v Huat Phay [2009] ACTSC 130
R v MCY [2018] QCA 275
R v Navin [2016] ACTSC 109
R v Patel (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 952
R v Pearson [2002] NSWCCA 429; 137 A Crim R 419
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
R v Porritt [2008] ACTSC 71
R v Singh [1999] ACTSC 66; 154 ACTR 62
R v Smart [2008] VSC 155
R v…

Continue reading Urlich v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Urlich v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 30
Case
[2019] ACTCA 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Urlich v The Queen* concerned a sentence imposed on the appellant, who had been convicted of manslaughter. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Loukas-Karlsson and Bromwich JJ.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether there had been a specific error in the sentencing process, particularly in light of the appellant's significant admissions made during the trial and a non-compliance with section 37 of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT). The Court was also required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and, if so, whether resentencing was warranted.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that a resentencing was necessary. The specific error related to the sentencing judge's approach to the appellant's admissions and the application of section 37 of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT). The Court determined that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and therefore ordered that the appellant be resentenced.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. Appellant resentenced

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.