Wurramarbra, G. v The Queen

[1979] FCA 126

FEDEIu.L COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N.7. . D I S T R I C T REGISTRY

........ .......

DIVISION

N o of Action ........ .. "5 W- of ........ . 1974

TITLE OF ACTION .$%v. .e!-i%fi.t?+!%w .T.Y z. ??? .??Y-??! .. . . ........ ......

do. I \ . 1s 23 1 1 762 ,

Date(s) of hea r ing ........ ........ ..... Date judgment	de l ive red ...:..	:....
Counsel and

. b

(

S o l i c i t o r s f o r , (

t I I

Counsel and

(

S o l i c i t o r s	f o r	(
:

Signed ........ ........ ........ ........ .... -e /WF&

(Associate)

3.1 a . w

Date : ........ ........ ..

(NOTE: To be des?aLch~d t o I ' r i ~ ? c i p a l Reqistry-, Sydncl- f o r

on-forwarding t o law pub l i she r s )

CATCHWORDS

Criminal law - appeal against severity of sentence - disparity of sentence of CO-offender charged wlth lesser offence -

principle that parlty be taken into account not applicable.

Gary Wurramarbra v. The Queen

NTG No.14 of 1979.

Coram: St.John, Fisher and Gallop JJ.

Danvin

23 November. 1979.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA	1 NO. NTG 14 of 1979
1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN : GARY PJURFUUIARBRA

Appellant

- A?? : THE QUEEN

Respondent

- ORDER

JUDGES FAKING ORDER :	St-John, Fisher and Gallop JJ.
DATE OF ORDER :	23 November, 1979.
WHERE MADE :	Danvin.
The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA	1 No. NTG 1 4 o f 1979
)

GENERAL DIVISION 1

ON APPEAL FRO11 THE SUPREEIE COURT OF

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. S.C.C. 181 o f 1 9 7 9 .

BETWEEN :

GARY WURRAMARBRA

Appel lan t

AND :

THE QUEEN

. .

Respondent

2 3 November, 1 9 79 ST-JOHN, FISHER AND GALLOP JJ.

Gary Wurramarbra itas on h i s oiin p l e a o f g u i l t y convic ted o f

b u r g l a r y on 5 June, 1979 and on 2 2 June, 1979 ?Ir J u s t i c e Muirhead l

imposed a sen tence of f o u r y e a r s ' imprisonment w i t h ha rd l abour

t o be se rved concur ren t ly w i th a s en t ence o f one y e a r ' s

imprisonment wi th ha rd l abour f o r l a r ceny i n a dwel l ing house.

Against t h e f i r s t -ment ioned sen tence he appea ls t o t h i s Court

on t h e grounds t h a t t h a t sen tence i s t o o seve re and i n p a r t i c u l a r

complains of t h e disparity between t h a t sen tence and t h e s en t ence

o f a CO-offender.

The ci rcumstances o f t h e o f f ence were t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t and

one Bara s t o l e goods from c e r t a i n dwel l ing houses on Groote

Eylandt on t h e n i g h t of 10 A p r i l , 1979. A r eco rd of i n t e r v i e w

was taken from Bara. H e v7as i ncapab le o f s p e c i f y i n g t h e t ime

du r ing which t h e bu rg l ed house was e n t e r e d , b u t made a l l o t h e r

admissions necessary t o found and prove a charge of b reak , e n t e r

and steal. A t t h e t i m e o f t h a t o f f e n c e he was i n t h e company

o f t h e a p p e l l a n t i n what was a j o i n t e n t e r p r i s e . Bara e n t e r e d

a p l e a o f g u i l t y t o b reak , e n t e r and s t e a l b e f o r e a magistrate

and was sentenced by t h a t m a g i s t r a t e t o f o u r t e e n months'

imprisonment w i t h ha rd l abour and t h i s f a c t was made known t o

M r J u s t l c e Muirhead b e f o r e he passed sen tence on t h e a p p e l l a n t .

l l r Parsons , who ab ly r ep re sen ted t h e a p p e l l a n t on t h e appea l ,

w i se ly conf ined h i s arguments t o t h e d i s p a r i t y o f t h e two

sen tences f o r t h e same e x p l o i t . We s a y rvisely because it i s

p e r f e c t l y apparen t t h a t t h e r e w a s no o t h e r a v a i l a b l e l i n e of

a t t a c k on t h e sen tence imposed.

Both t h e a p p e l l a n t and Bara have long c r i m i n a l r eco rds even

though t h e y a r e comparat ively young men, t h e a p p e l l a n t a t t h e

t i m e o f sen tence be ing approximately twenty-two y e a r s o f age.

I t v7as submi t ted on beha l f o f t h e a p p e l l a n t t h a t it was a

p roper ca se f o r t h e s en t enc ing judge t o t a k e i n t o account t h e

fou r t een months' imprisonment awarded Bara i n f i x i n g t h e

sen tence f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t . We were r e f e r r e d t o a number o f

a u t h o r i t i e s i n whlch t h a t principle was a p p l i e d where CO-offenders

had been convic ted of t h e same o f f ence . W e were a l s o r e f e r r e d

t o a d e c i s i o n of N i l l i a m s A.J . i n Millbanks v. Joseph r1979) I

21 S.A.S.R. 310 where a passenger i n a motor c a r had been

convic ted o f f a i l i n g t o wear a s e a t b e l t and f i n e d $20.00 and

t h e d r l v e r o f t h e same motor v e h l c l e was convic ted by a c o u r t

d i f f e r e n t l y constituted some t l m e e a r l i e r and f i n e d $80.00.

Willlams B.J. found i n t h e d e c i s i o n o f N a l t e r s J. i n Wood v.

Samuels 11974) 8 S.A.S.R. 465 some suppor t f o r app ly ing t h e

p r i n c i p l e i n t h o s e c i rcumstances .

" I t i s impor tan t t h a t a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e convicted persons

should n o t be l e f t w i th a s ense of i n j u s t i c e o r g r i evance , a t

l e a s t i f t h e r e a r e reasonable grounds f o r such a feeling";

R. V. D'Ortenzio and Burns 1 1 9 6 1 ) V.R. 432 a t Page 433;

R. v. Tiddy 11969) S.A.S.R. 575. It w a s urged upon t h i s Court

t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e should be a p p l i e d d e s p i t e t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n

t h e o f f ences t o which t h e appe l l an t . and Bara pleaded g u i l t y .

N o a u t h o r i t y i n which c i rcumstances on a l l f o u r s w i th t h e

p r e s e n t m a t t e r were cons idered was r e f e r r e d t o us. F u r t h e r i t

appears t h a t t h e r e has been no exhaus t ive a n a l y s i s o f t h e

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which a r e t aken i n t o account i n determining

whether t h e s ense o f injustice o r g r ievance was soundly based.

I n t h e ca se under appea l it i s p e r f e c t l y c l e a r t h a t looking a t

t h e o v e r a l l s i t u a t i o n , Bara and t h e a p p e l l a n t were e q u a l l y

cu lpab le . The Crown however chose t o charge Bara w i t h a

lesser o f f e n c e because of l ack of evidence and t h e q u e s t i o n is

whether o r n o t t h e a p p e l l a n t i s e n t i t l e d , w i t h i n t h e terms of

t h e p r i n c i p l e , t o f e e l a s ense o f i n j u s t i c e o r g r ievance t h a t

g ives rise t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r u l e . It appears t o us

t h a t t h e s ense o f i n j u s t i c e o r g r ievance t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t

would f e e l i n t h e i n s t a n t case would be i n t h e same ca tegory

a s t h a t which he would f e e l if h i s CO-offender escaped d e t e c t i o n

and was n o t brought t o t r i a l . We a r e o f t h e op in ion t h a t ,

a l though t h e f a c t s may be i d e n t i c a l o r s i m i l a r , where t h e r e a r e

conv ic t ions on d i f f e r e n t charges , t h e p r i n c i p l e cannot ope ra t e .

Where, o f cou r se , t h e person convic ted of t h e more s e r i o u s

o f f ence r e c e i v e s a sen tence which is less than t h e person

convic ted o f t h e less s e r i o u s o f f e n c e , a l l o t h e r a s p e c t s being

approximately e q u a l , d i f f e r e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s apply. Break,

e n t e r and s t e a l i s punishable by a maximum of e i g h t y e a r s '

imprisonment w i t h ha rd	l abour and bu rg l a ry	is pun i shab le by
l i f e imprisonment.

I n o u r view t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e i s conf ined t o

t hose ca ses where t h e r e i s a t rue .cojnpar ison of l i k e w i t h l i k e ,

where t h e same of fence i s proved a g a i n s t bo th , and t h e principle

is n o t a p p l i c a b l e where t h e r e i s a g r e a t v a r i a t i o n i n t h e penalties

provided f o r i n t h e two of fences .

The appea l i s dismissed.

I hereby c e r t i f y t h a t t h e preceding four pages

a r e a t r u e copy of t h e Reasons f o r Judgment of

Thei r Honours M r J u s t i c e St.John, M r J u s t i c e

F i s h e r and M r J u s t i c e Gallop i n t h i s mat te r .

Dated t h i s 23rd day of ~ o v e & e i , 1979.

. E..% o+?d:L 0

Assoclate t o St.John J.