Legal Research
Cases
ZL v Corey

ZL v Corey

Case [2020] ACTSC 143 3 June 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	ZL v Corey
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 143
Hearing Date(s):	30 January 2020
DecisionDate:	3 June 2020
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [132]
Catchwords:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether further evidence should be admitted – whether Magistrate considered alternatives to imprisonment – whether s 17 disposition appropriate – re-sentence
Legislation Cited:	Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) s 345 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 86 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10 and 17 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 207, 208 and 214 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 10
Cases Cited:	Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 Barac v Thexton [2008] ACTSC 137 Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 Bethke v Phelan [2016] ACTSC 328 Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420 Bifel v The Queen [2013] VSCA 82 Bond v McFarlane (1990) 102 FLR 38 Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 32 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Campbell v Fortey (1986) 24 A Crim R 386 Carroll v The Queen [2009] HCA 13; 254 CLR 259 Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) [2010] ACTSC 166; 5 ACTLR 151 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Drought v Driesen [2009] ACTSC 46 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Grooms v Toohey [2012] ACTSC 28; 7 ACTLR 1 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 IT v Knight [2020] ACTSC 101 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29;195 CLR 665 Lukatela v Apostoloff [2010] ACTSC 74 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297 O’Brien v Noble [2012] ACTCA 13; 6 ACTLR 132 Pettitt v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376 Proud v Sladic [2014] ACTCA 26 Purcell v O’Reilly [2018] ACTSC 60 R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32; 170 A Crim R 306 R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291 R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22; 233 A Crim R 67 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Lattouf (Unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Mahoney ACJ, Sully J and Adams AJ, 12 December 1996) R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51 R v Terry [1995] VLR 114 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [24] R v Wagle (No 2)

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 ZL v Corey

Details

AGLC: ZL v Corey [2020] ACTSC 143
Case: [2020] ACTSC 143
Decision Date: 3 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ZL v Corey is an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The appellant, ZL, was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal focuses on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the Magistrate failed to adequately consider alternatives to imprisonment. Further, it was argued that the Magistrate should have admitted additional evidence and that the disposition under section 17 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) was not appropriate.

The primary legal issues in this appeal revolve around the severity of the sentence, the consideration of non-custodial alternatives, and the admissibility of new evidence. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the offence and that the Magistrate did not adequately weigh the mitigating factors and alternatives to imprisonment. The appellant also sought the admission of further evidence to support their case, which was denied by the Magistrate.

The Court of Appeal considered these issues in detail. The Court noted that while the sentence imposed was at the higher end of the scale, it was not so excessive as to be manifestly disproportionate. The Court also examined whether the Magistrate had failed to consider non-custodial alternatives and found that the Magistrate had indeed considered these but found them inappropriate in this case. Regarding the new evidence, the Court concluded that its admission would not have led to a different outcome. The Court ultimately found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the Magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion.

In light of these findings, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence. However, recognising the importance of the s 17 disposition, the Court ordered a re-sentencing to ensure that the appropriate considerations were given to the disposition.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [132]

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.

Actions

Citations

ZL v Corey [2020] ACTSC 143

Most Recent Citation

Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288

Cases Citing This Decision

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cahill (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 464
Citation 1 (Para 9)

…the effect of physical violence or verbal abuse perpetrated upon or in the presence of children. The observations of Loukas-Karlsson J in Zl v Corey [2020] ACTSC 143 at [123]-[124] are apposite and I embrace them: Offences occurring in the family home are indeed a scourge in our Australian community. The Courts mu…
Norman v Jones [2024] ACTSC 11
Citation 2

…HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 Proud v Sladic [2014] ACTCA 26; 67 MVR 485 RLG v Donnelly [2012] WASC 230 Wong v the Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584 ZL v Corey [2020] ACTSC 143…
R v Kayin (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 164
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…as a Tasmanian case which I felt was of little assistance for a range of reasons but particularly two ACT decisions. The decision of ZL v Corey [2020] ACTSC 143 and a matter of Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288.…
Dang v Li [2021] ACTSC 179
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…The respondent drew attention to the decision of ZL v Corey [2020] ACTSC 143 ( ZL ), where it was stated at [81] that alternatives to imprisonment were not explicitly considered and should have been so considered. It was submitted that ZL did not accord with the established principles set out in Field v Unas. I do…
Kajevic v Noble [2021] ACTSC 67
Citation 5

…Wells v Mount [2020] ACTSC 333 Walshe v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 5 Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584 ZL v Corey [2020] ACTSC 143…
Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…The essential complaint made by the appellant arose out of the manner in which the magistrate dealt with the decision of this court in ZL v Corey [2020] ACTSC 143 ( ZL ). That case was an appeal from the same magistrate which arose in factually similar circumstances. The Supreme Court had set aside the magistrate’s…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Bethke v Phelan [2016] ACTSC 328
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…In Bethke v Phelan [2016] ACTSC 328 at [33], Murrell CJ stated the following:…
IT v Knight [2020] ACTSC 101
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…In IT v Knight [2020] ACTSC 101, I dealt, at some length, with the principles concerning further evidence at [9] to [25]. Additionally, at paragraphs [33] to [41], the question of re-sentence consequent upon the admission of further evidence is dealt with.…
DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 41
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…ne correct sentence: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [22]; Markarian at [133]; and DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [7].…
Purcell v O'Reilly [2018] ACTSC 60
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…considerations, and which therefore remove the particular offending from being suitable for the imposition of a s 17 order: Purcell v O’Reilly [2018] ACTSC 60 at [13], [28]-[31].…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…t there is no one correct sentence: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [22]; Markarian at [133]; and DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [7].…
R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…tween the parties, as set out above. Occasionally, labels can obfuscate more than they illuminate. As has previously been expressed in R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [24]:…
R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…e sentencing judge’s factual findings: Carroll at [24]. An assessment of objective seriousness is part of the sentencing process: see R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 at [19].…
Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 32
Citation 8

…SC 328 Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420 Bifel v The Queen [2013] VSCA 82 Bond v McFarlane (1990) 102 FLR 38 Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 32 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Campbell v Fortey (1986) 24 A Crim R 386 Carroll v The Queen [2009] HCA 13; 254 CLR 259 Cobiac v Liddy (…
Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…st be put to one side at this juncture. The ground of manifest excess must be examined without the benefit of the further evidence: Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420 at [2], [11]. The evidence outlined above may become relevant on re-sentence if the ground of manifest excess is upheld. It is therefore…
Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…vital importance to the administration of criminal justice”, citing Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 at [15] and Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 at [54]-[55].…
Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…e test that applies to an appeal ground that a sentence is manifestly excessive is settled, and that the principles are set out in Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 at [18] ( Dalton ), citing Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 ( Dinsdale ); House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Melham v The Queen [2011…
Proud v Sladic [2014] ACTCA 26
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…It was accepted by the appellant that the “ordinary consequence of a finding of guilt is the recording of a conviction”: per Proud v Sladic [2014] ACTCA 26 at [42] ( Sladic ). The appellant submitted, however, that while a non-conviction is an exceptional outcome, “section 17 says nothing about the need for except…
The Queen v Saurav Wagle (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 160
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…the yardstick of the maximum penalty, a relatively serious offence but, by no means, the most serious in the criminal calendar”: R v Wagle (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 160 at [6]. It was also noted that, in R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291 at [28], Refshauge J held that the offence is one where ordinarily a sentence of imprisonm…
Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…le v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 ( Dinsdale ); House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121; Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 ( Barbaro ); Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 ( Markarian ); R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32; 170 A Crim R 306; and Balthazaar…
R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…nce but, by no means, the most serious in the criminal calendar”: R v Wagle (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 160 at [6]. It was also noted that, in R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291 at [28], Refshauge J held that the offence is one where ordinarily a sentence of imprisonment may well be imposed.…
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…balances many different and conflicting features”: Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584 at [75], cited in Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 at [59] and Markarian at [37].…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 17 (Para 1)

…ndent referred to the following cases for the principle that sentencing is discretionary and that there is no one correct sentence: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [22]; Markarian at [133]; and DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [7].…
R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22
Citation 18 (Para 1)

…Citing R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22; 233 A Crim R 67 at [37], the respondent submitted that, where the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation are important factors in sentencing, the scope for the operation of s 17 decreases.…
Bifel v The Queen [2013] VSCA 82
Citation 19 (Para 1)

…General deterrence alone is not the only sentencing purpose that must be considered. In Bifel v The Queen [2013] VSCA 82 at [4], Harper JA stated:…
RLG v Donnelly [2012] WASC 230
Citation 20

…er [2012] NSWCCA 51 R v Terry [1995] VLR 114 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [24] R v Wagle (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 160 RLG v Donnelly [2012] WASC 230 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 Spatolisano v Hyde [2009] ACTSC 161 Stanford v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 73 Veen v The Queen (N…
Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26
Citation 21 (Para 1)

…( Barbaro ); Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 ( Markarian ); R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32; 170 A Crim R 306; and Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 ( Balthazaar ).…
R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…In R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51 at [19], the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, in relation to the operation of the equivalent NSW section, s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), stated the following:…
O'Brien v Noble [2012] ACTCA 13
Citation 23

…4 CLR 132 Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297 O’Brien v Noble [2012] ACTCA 13; 6 ACTLR 132 Pettitt v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376 Proud v Sladic [2014] ACTCA 26 Purcell v O’Reilly [2018] ACTSC 60 R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32; 170 A Cr…
Grooms v Toohey [2012] ACTSC 28
Citation 24 (Para 1)

…The appellant submitted that the approach to be taken is that outlined by Justice Refshauge in Grooms v Toohey [2012] ACTSC 28; 7 ACTLR 1 at [36]-[37] ( Grooms v Toohey ).…
Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121
Citation 25 (Para 1)

…CA 48 at [18] ( Dalton ), citing Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 ( Dinsdale ); House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121; Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 ( Barbaro ); Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 ( Markarian ); R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32;…
Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) [2010] ACTSC 166
Citation 26 (Para 1)

…dent submitted that the principles applicable to appeals on the ground of manifest excess have been set out by Refshauge J in Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) [2010] ACTSC 166; 5 ACTLR 151. The relevant principles set out by the respondent were in accordance with those raised by the appellant.…
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
Citation 27

…1; 262 CLR 428 Drought v Driesen [2009] ACTSC 46 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Grooms v Toohey [2012] ACTSC 28; 7 ACTLR 1 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 IT v Knight [2020] ACTSC 101 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29;195 CLR 665 Lukatela v Apostoloff [201…
Lukatela v Apostoloff [2010] ACTSC 74
Citation 28 (Para 1)

…ted that a conviction is a formal mark of society’s disapproval of the wrongdoing and is part of the offender’s punishment: Lukatela v Apostoloff [2010] ACTSC 74 at [29].…
Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59
Citation 29

…y [1995] VLR 114 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [24] R v Wagle (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 160 RLG v Donnelly [2012] WASC 230 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 Spatolisano v Hyde [2009] ACTSC 161 Stanford v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 73 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Wong…
Spatolisano v Hyde [2009] ACTSC 161
Citation 30

…v Wagle (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 160 RLG v Donnelly [2012] WASC 230 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 Spatolisano v Hyde [2009] ACTSC 161 Stanford v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 73 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584…
Drought v Driesen [2009] ACTSC 46
Citation 31

…ueen [2015] ACTCA 48 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Drought v Driesen [2009] ACTSC 46 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Grooms v Toohey [2012] ACTSC 28; 7 ACTLR 1 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 House v The King (193…
Carroll v The Queen [2009] HCA 13
Citation 32 (Para 1)

…objective seriousness of an offence where the only House v The King error asserted is that the sentence is “plainly unjust”: Carroll v The Queen [2009] HCA 13; 254 CLR 259 at [24] ( Carroll ). However, in reaching its conclusion, the appeal court does not discard the sentencing judge’s factual findings: Carroll…
Barac v Thexton [2008] ACTSC 137
Citation 33

…Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 Barac v Thexton [2008] ACTSC 137 Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 Bethke v Phelan [2016] ACTSC 328 Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420 Bifel v The Queen [2013] VSCA 82 Bond v McFarlane (1990) 102 FLR 38 Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 32 Bugmy v…
Stanford v R [2007] NSWCCA 73
Citation 34 (Para 1)

…Evidence of rehabilitation may mitigate the need for personal deterrence and does so in this case: Stanford v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 73 at [19]. The appellant is a person with a very low risk of re-offending: R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51 at [39].…
R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32
Citation 35 (Para 1)

…011] NSWCCA 121; Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 ( Barbaro ); Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 ( Markarian ); R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32; 170 A Crim R 306; and Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 ( Balthazaar ).…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 36

…It is not enough to establish that a sentence is manifestly excessive that the members of the appeal court would have imposed a different sentence: Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [28]; R v Abbott (2007) 170 A Crim R 306 at 309 [14]; Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 at [61].…
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64
Citation 37 (Para 1)

…lain that the sentencer is called on to reach a single sentence which … balances many different and conflicting features”: Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584 at [75], cited in Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 at [59] and Markarian at [37].…
Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297
Citation 38 (Para 1)

…efined as circumstances which excuse the commission of the offence or lessen the appellant’s guilt in some “appreciable degree”: Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297 at [58].…
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54
Citation 39

…s is a conclusion which does not depend upon attribution of identified specific error in the reasoning of the sentencing judge: Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 ( Dinsdale ). · The relevant test is whether the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Dinsdale at [6]; Melh…
Meissner v the Queen [1995] HCA 41
Citation 40

…des v The Queen [1999] HCA 29;195 CLR 665 Lukatela v Apostoloff [2010] ACTSC 74 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297 O’Brien v Noble [2012] ACTC…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 41 (Para 1)

…In Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465, Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ stated at 476:…
Gallagher v The Queen [1986] HCA 26
Citation 42

…een [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Drought v Driesen [2009] ACTSC 46 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Grooms v Toohey [2012] ACTSC 28; 7 ACTLR 1 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 IT v Knight [2020] ACTSC 10…
Cobiac v Liddy [1969] HCA 26
Citation 43

…[2016] ACTCA 32 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Campbell v Fortey (1986) 24 A Crim R 386 Carroll v The Queen [2009] HCA 13; 254 CLR 259 Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) [2010] ACTSC 166; 5 ACTLR 151 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321…
House v R [1936] HCA 40
Citation 44 (Para 1)

…t out in Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 at [18] ( Dalton ), citing Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 ( Dinsdale ); House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121; Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 ( Barbaro ); Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 ( M…
Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 212
Citation 45

…entence which is erroneous in point of principle because it has not been imposed according to the rules of reason or justice: Barbaro v The Queen ; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 305 ALR 323 at [61].…
House v The King 63 WN 176
Citation 46 (Para 1)

…principles are set out in Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 at [18] ( Dalton ), citing Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321 ( Dinsdale ); House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121; Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 ( Barbaro ); Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228…
[1999] HCA 29 [1999] HCA 29
Citation 47 (Para 1)

…y discretionary decision, the preservation of which is of vital importance to the administration of criminal justice”, citing Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 at [15] and Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65 at [54]-[55].…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) 10, 17, 7
4 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) 207, 208, 214
4 mentions (from Para 1)
Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) 345
2 mentions
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) 86
2 mentions
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) 10
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 24
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT)
1 mention