Vuolo v Fall

VUOLO
v
FALL
[2024] HCASL 46
C14/2023

The applicant applies for an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Baker, McWilliam and Abraham JJ) dismissing an appeal from the decision of a judge of the ACT Supreme Court (Kennett J) whereby the judge allowed an appeal from the sentencing Magistrate's orders not imposing a conviction but imposing a 12 months' good behaviour order on the applicant in respect of the proven offence of stalking his ex-partner on six occasions. Kennett J held the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and re-sentenced the applicant to a 12 months' good behaviour order with conviction.
The proposed appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave and, further, is an inappropriate vehicle to consider the proper approach to s 17(2)(b) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT). In such circumstances, an extension of time would be futile.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
7 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vuolo sought an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had dismissed an appeal against a decision of a judge of the ACT Supreme Court. The judge had allowed an appeal from sentencing Magistrate's orders not imposing a conviction but imposing a 12 months' good behaviour order on Vuolo in respect of proven offences of stalking his ex-partner on six occasions. The judge held the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and re-sentenced Vuolo to a 12 months' good behaviour order with conviction. The proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave and was an inappropriate vehicle to consider the proper approach to s 17(2)(b) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT). An extension of time would be futile. Special leave to appeal was refused.

The court considered the legal issues surrounding the assessment of the sentence imposed by the Magistrate and the re-sentencing by the judge of the ACT Supreme Court. The court needed to determine whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave, and whether it was the appropriate vehicle to consider the proper approach to s 17(2)(b) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT). The court found that the proposed appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave and was an inappropriate vehicle to consider the proper approach to s 17(2)(b) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT).

The court held that the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The court found that the appeal was an inappropriate vehicle to consider the proper approach to s 17(2)(b) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT). The court noted that the appeal was an attempt to have the Court of Appeal re-assess the sentence imposed by the Magistrate and the re-sentencing by the judge of the ACT Supreme Court. The court found that the appeal was not an appropriate vehicle to consider the proper approach to s 17(2)(b) of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT) because it was not a question of law that arose from the decision of the Court of Appeal. The court held that an extension of time would be futile in such circumstances. The court refused special leave to appeal.

The court refused special leave to appeal.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established