Keen v The Queen [2000] FCA 940
The sentence imposed should have taken into account the time served in custody from 27 January 1999, either by backdating the sentence or by an express acknowledgement in accordance with s 451(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Failure to do so constituted error requiring the sentence to be varied so that it commenced on 27 January 1999.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 July 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Severity of Sentence; Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; sentence varied
- Legal Topics
- ['commencement of Sentence' 'time Spent in Custody' 'backdating Sentences']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Severity of Sentence; Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether time spent in custody prior to sentencing must be taken into account under s 451(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)' 'Whether the sentence should be backdated to reflect time already served' 'Interpretation and application of s 441A and s 451(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)']
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence imposed should have taken into account the time served in custody from 27 January 1999, either by backdating the sentence or by an express acknowledgement in accordance with s 451(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Failure to do so constituted error requiring the sentence to be varied so that it commenced on 27 January 1999.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; sentence varied
Orders
- ['Application for extension of time granted' 'Hearing of application treated as hearing of appeal' 'Appeal allowed' 'Judgment of Supreme Court set aside' 'Sentence in Magistrates Court varied to commence on 27 January 1999']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment