The Queen v Arthur John Prindable [1979] FCA 24

The Queen v Arthur John Prindable [1979] FCA 24

The original sentence, due to its suspension, was so lenient as not to reflect the community's moral sense or act as a sufficient deterrent for violent crimes, thereby manifesting an error of principle and warranting appellate intervention to require actual imprisonment.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: Arthur John Prindable
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 1979
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Imprisonment, Parole, Suspension of Sentence, Review of Sentencing Discretion
Criminal Law Sentencing Imprisonment Parole Suspension of Sentence Review of Sentencing Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

Arthur John Prindable

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was so inadequate as to constitute an error in principle
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of sentencing discretion with respect to suspension of sentence was appropriately exercised
  3. 3 Proper application of the principles concerning non-parole periods and suspension of sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence, due to its suspension, was so lenient as not to reflect the community's moral sense or act as a sufficient deterrent for violent crimes, thereby manifesting an error of principle and warranting appellate intervention to require actual imprisonment.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The respondent to be imprisoned on each charge for a period of four years, to be served concurrently.