R v Ruha, Ruha & Harris; ex parte Cth DPP

(2010) 198 A Crim R 430; [2010] QCA 10

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Commonwealth offences
4. › Recognizance release orders
5. › Pre-release period
6. › Whether norm or guide of 60-66% of head sentence applies
7. › Whether departure requires most unusual factors
8. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 19AC, 19AF, 20(1)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Commonwealth offences
4. › Consistency in sentencing
5. › Role of comparable decisions from other jurisdictions
6. › Whether local sentencing practices should influence Commonwealth sentences
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Crown appeal
5. › Sentence manifestly inadequate
6. › Pre-release period under recognizance release order
7. › Tax fraud conspiracy
8. › Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 135.4(3)

Quick Take

There is no binding norm or guide requiring pre-release periods under recognizance release orders for Commonwealth offences to be 60-66% of the head sentence. The proportion the pre-release period bears to the head sentence is not a separate object of the sentencing exercise but the result of applying conventional sentencing principles to all the circumstances. Consistency is achieved by reference to comparable decisions from all Australian jurisdictions, not by a formulaic ratio. R v CAK & CAL [2009] QCA 23 should not be followed insofar as it sanctioned such a norm.