Vuolo v Fall

This case concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against a decision of a single judge of that court. The appellant, Mr Vuolo, sought to quash or set aside orders made by the primary judge, which had overturned a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. The primary judge had set aside the original sentence, which involved a conviction and a good behaviour order, and resentenced Mr Vuolo to a conviction and a 12-month good behaviour order, backdated to the original sentence date. Mr Vuolo sought the reinstatement of the original sentence.

The appeal raised seven grounds, with the most significant relating to the primary judge's finding that the non-conviction order originally made by the Magistrate was an "outlier". The appellant argued that this finding was based on flawed reasoning, particularly because the primary judge failed to consider the case of *Wells*, where a non-conviction order was made for a stalking offence. The appellant contended that if *Wells* had been considered, the primary judge would have recognised that the Magistrate's sentence was not an outlier and that a non-conviction order was within the Magistrate's discretion. The appellant also argued that the primary judge's comparison of cases was flawed, comparing dissimilar cases.

The Supreme Court considered section 33(1)(za) of the *Sentencing Act*, which mandates that a court must have regard to current sentencing practice and patterns when determining a sentence. While the Court found one ground of appeal to be established, upon reconsideration of the Crown's appeal, it arrived at the same conclusion as the primary judge. Consequently, the Court determined that it would not interfere with the orders made by the primary judge.