Anderson, Raymond John v The Queen [1978] FCA 29

Anderson, Raymond John v The Queen [1978] FCA 29

The Federal Court rejected the contention that it had an unfettered discretion to substitute its own sentence and held that appellate intervention required error in the trial Judge's exercise of discretion. The appellant's offences were sustained, planned dishonesty by a trusted employee causing a loss of $50,557,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Pursuant to S. 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['severity of Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'appellate Interference With Sentencing Discretion' 'embezzlement' 'forgery' 'uttering' 'false Entries With Intent to Defraud']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'appellate Procedure'] ['severity of Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'appellate Interference With Sentencing Discretion' 'embezzlement' 'forgery' 'uttering' 'false Entries With Intent to Defraud']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal Pursuant to S. 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s.28(1) of the Federal Court Act 1976 gave the Court an unfettered discretion to substitute its own sentence for that of the trial Judge.' 'Whether the trial Judge erred in exercising sentencing discretion by imposing concurrent sentences including six years imprisonment on three forgery charges and a non-parole period of three years.' 'Whether the non-parole period was too long having regard to repentance, co-operation with police, plea of guilty, rehabilitation and other mitigating circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court rejected the contention that it had an unfettered discretion to substitute its own sentence and held that appellate intervention required error in the trial Judge's exercise of discretion. The appellant's offences were sustained, planned dishonesty by a trusted employee causing a loss of $50,557, and the three-year non-parole period was within the limits of a reasonable exercise of discretion. No error was shown, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal be dismissed.']