Strong v The Queen [2005] HCA 30

Strong v The Queen [2005] HCA 30

Where the appellate court sets aside the primary sentences for error, it must also set aside the pronouncement and further sentence under the Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW). The appellate court is required to exercise its own discretion anew in relation to the pronouncement and sentence as habitual criminal,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Robert John Strong; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed (as per majority: McHugh and Kirby JJ; Minority: Gleeson CJ, Callinan and Heydon JJ would dismiss the appeal)
Legal Topics
Habitual Criminals, Sentencing Procedures, Preventive Detention, Appellate Review
Criminal Law Sentencing Habitual Criminals Sentencing Procedures Preventive Detention Appellate Review

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Strong

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, after overturning primary sentences, an appellate court must re-determine both the pronouncement and further sentence under the Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether a pronouncement as habitual criminal stands when the related sentences are set aside
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court must exercise its own discretion to re-make a pronouncement under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Where the appellate court sets aside the primary sentences for error, it must also set aside the pronouncement and further sentence under the Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW). The appellate court is required to exercise its own discretion anew in relation to the pronouncement and sentence as habitual criminal, rather than treating its review as simply appellate oversight of the primary judge’s discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (as per majority: McHugh and Kirby JJ; Minority: Gleeson CJ, Callinan and Heydon JJ would dismiss the appeal)

Orders

  • The order of the Court of Criminal Appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted to that Court to determine the appellant's appeal against the pronouncement that he is an habitual criminal.