Tutchell v The Queen

[2018] VSCA 269

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Sentence
4. › Non-parole period
5. › Whether sentencing judge manifestly failed to give effect to stated intention to fix shorter non-parole period
6. › Ratio between non-parole period and head sentence not determinative
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Non-parole period
4. › Principles governing appellate review
5. › Whether reasonably open to sentencing judge to fix non-parole period
6. › Relevance of prospects of rehabilitation to non-parole period

Quick Take

Where a sentencing judge describes the non-parole period already determined upon in sentencing remarks as 'shorter than it would otherwise have been', without indicating the weight given to relevant factors, this amounts to no more than a statement that the judge took those factors into account. The ratio between non-parole period and head sentence is not determinative of whether the judge manifestly failed to give effect to a stated intention. [name withheld] v The Queen does not stand for the proposition that a stated intention is falsified merely by showing the non-parole period is at the high end of the range.