Tully v The Queen

[2016] ACTCA 11

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Re-sentencing following successful appeal against some convictions
4. › Restructuring of remaining sentences
5. › Concurrence of sentences
6. › Principle of totality
7. › Whether total sentence should reflect concurrency in original sentencing structure
8. › Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 74
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Nonparole period
4. › Power to amend nonparole period on restructuring of sentences
5. › Whether s 74(5) prevents amendment of nonparole period
6. › Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted to enable adjustment
7. › Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 74(5)
8. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 37N, 37O
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Fresh evidence on appeal
4. › Whether appellant should be permitted to adduce evidence of medical condition
5. › Whether evidence unlikely to alter outcome
6. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37N
7. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5606

Quick Take

Practitioners in the ACT should be aware that s 74(5) prevents amendment of nonparole periods when restructuring sentences under s 74, and that leave to appeal against the nonparole period may need to be sought to enable adjustment.

Case Details

Citation[2016] ACTCA 11

CourtACTCA

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by6

2023DPP v KcACTSC 213
2021R v Bc (No 4)ACTSC 119
2021KC v The QueenACTCA 10
2021R v Ud (No 3)ACTSC 8
and 2 more after sign-in

Relies on4

2016Tully v The QueenACTCA 4
2014R v Tully (No 3)ACTSC 275
2005Markarian v RHCA 25
1988Mill v RHCA 70

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in