Geiger v The Queen [2001] FCA 475

Geiger v The Queen [2001] FCA 475

The appellant's pleas of guilty were taken into account and no separate error was shown in the sentencing judge's treatment of them, but the time the appellant would spend in custody before parole eligibility, including 200 days already served, created a marked disparity with Samuel's sentence. In light of the relative criminality, the custodial time already served, and the objective appearance of inequality, the disparity in the non-parole period gave rise to a justified sense of grievance. The appropriate correction was to leave the head sentence undisturbed but substitute a non-parole period expiring on 23 July 2001, the same parole eligibility date as Samuel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' 'disparity With Co Offender' 'plea of Guilty' 'non Parole Period' 'time Spent in Custody Prior to Sentence' 'crimes Act 1900 (act) S 451']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['parity Principle' 'disparity With Co Offender' 'plea of Guilty' 'non Parole Period' 'time Spent in Custody Prior to Sentence' 'crimes Act 1900 (act) S 451']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether disparity between the appellant's sentence and his co-offender's sentence was sufficient to give rise to a justified sense of grievance." "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's pleas of guilty." 'Whether a sentencing judge in the ACT should specify the discount given for a plea of guilty.' 'Whether time spent in custody prior to sentence under s 451 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) should be reckoned at the time of sentence or administratively after sentence.' "Whether the appellant's non-parole period should be adjusted to achieve parity with the co-offender."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's pleas of guilty were taken into account and no separate error was shown in the sentencing judge's treatment of them, but the time the appellant would spend in custody before parole eligibility, including 200 days already served, created a marked disparity with Samuel's sentence. In light of the relative criminality, the custodial time already served, and the objective appearance of inequality, the disparity in the non-parole period gave rise to a justified sense of grievance. The appropriate correction was to leave the head sentence undisturbed but substitute a non-parole period expiring on 23 July 2001, the same parole eligibility date as Samuel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed in part.' 'So much of the sentence that fixed a non-parole period of two years be set aside and in its place a non-parole period be fixed to expire on 23 July 2001.']