Wright, E.R. v The Queen - [1994] FCA 288

EDWARD ROSS WRIGHT v THE QUEEN
Nos. ACT G95 of 1993 and SCC80 of 1993
FED No. 288/94
Number of pages - 4
Criminal Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
DAVIES(1), VON DOUSSA(2) AND HIGGINS(3) JJ

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - sentencing - appeal - fixing of non-parole period - parity of sentence - difference between offenders considered - lesser total criminality of appellant - greater prospects for rehabilitation of appellant - effect on parity of sentences.

R v Readman (1990) 47 A Crim R 181
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606
R v Grmusa and Others (1990) 50 A Crim R 358
Power v R (1973) 131 CLR 623
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386).
R v Morgan (1980) 7 A Crim R 146
Bugmy v R (1990) 47 A Crim R 433

HEARING

CANBERRA, 11 April 1994
#DATE 12:5:1994

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr J Brewster

Instructing Solicitors: Legal Aid Office (ACT)

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Ibbotson

Instructing Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be upheld.

2. The sentence imposed on the appellant be varied by reducing the period during which the appellant will not be eligible for parole from three years to two years.

3. The sentence as so varied be confirmed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

DAVIES J I have had an opportunity to peruse the reasons for judgment prepared by Higgins J. and I agree with them and with the orders proposed.

JUDGE2

VON DOUSSA J I agree with the orders proposed by Higgins J and with his reasons for judgment.

JUDGE3

HIGGINS J The appellant was, on 22 September 1993, sentenced by Miles CJ to three years imprisonment on a charge of robbery with violence. On a further charge of burglary, he was sentenced to a further term of one year. A non-parole period of three years was fixed as from 22 September 1993.

The offences were admitted by the appellant. He had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and maintained that plea. The appellant had some prior criminal history as a juvenile including one burglary, theft and stealing a motor vehicle in 1989. He had not offended since then until the matters the subject of this appeal occurred.
Both offences arose out of the same fact situation.
The appellant had been persuaded to accompany two others, Hollingshead and Rodgers. He was told they wanted to commit a burglary. When he arrived at the place where the offence was to be committed he found that the proposed victim was present on the premises. This was about 9.00pm on 15 January 1993.
The offenders entered the premises. One of the appellant's co-offenders knew the victim. It was the co-offenders' intention to get money for drugs. The occupant was tied up by the appellant. The co-offenders threatened the occupant with a knife forcing…

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 Wright, E.R. v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wright, E.R. v. The Queen [1994] FCA 288
Case: [1994] FCA 288
Decision Date: 12 MAY 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wright, E.R. v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was tasked with addressing an appeal against a sentence imposed by a lower court. The appellant, Wright, had been convicted of a criminal offence and subsequently sentenced. The central dispute revolved around the determination of the non-parole period, which is the duration an offender must serve before becoming eligible for parole. Wright contended that the original non-parole period of three years was excessively harsh and disproportionate given his circumstances.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the principles of sentencing, particularly the balance between the severity of the crime and the offender's prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to consider whether the original sentence adequately reflected the lesser criminality of Wright compared to other offenders and whether it appropriately accounted for his greater potential for rehabilitation. The appellant argued that the original sentence was disproportionate, failing to maintain parity with sentences imposed on similarly situated offenders and disregarding his prospects for rehabilitation.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that the original sentence might have been overly stringent. It considered the totality of Wright's criminality, which was less severe than that of some other offenders, and recognised his higher potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that a reduction in the non-parole period was warranted to ensure a more equitable sentencing outcome. The High Court found that a two-year non-parole period better aligned with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the sentence was varied to reduce the non-parole period to two years, with the modified sentence subsequently confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be upheld.

2. The sentence imposed on the appellant be varied by reducing the period during which the appellant will not be eligible for parole from three years to two years.

3. The sentence as so varied be confirmed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.