The Queen v Hennessy, Patrick Michael [1996] FCA 380

The Queen v Hennessy, Patrick Michael [1996] FCA 380

The sentence imposed below was manifestly inadequate because the drug offence was a separate and distinct series of transactions that should have been made cumulative, the 12 month sentence that would have been imposed for the trespass and theft offences was a quite inadequate marking of serious criminal conduct involving theft of substantial cash and jewellery, and release after two months failed to reflect the degree of criminality. After allowing for guilty pleas and a one-third reduction for promised co-operation, the proper aggregate head sentence was four years with a two year non-parole period commencing 21 January 1996.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Crown Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory set aside and substituted sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
['manifest Inadequacy' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'armed Robbery' 'common Assault' 'possession of Heroin for Purpose of Supply' 'entering a Building as a Trespasser With Intent to Steal' 'theft' 'cumulative and Concurrent Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea' 'promised Co Operation With Law Enforcement' 'drug Rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Inadequacy' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'armed Robbery' 'common Assault' 'possession of Heroin for Purpose of Supply' 'entering a Building as a Trespasser With Intent to Steal' 'theft' 'cumulative and Concurrent Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea' 'promised Co Operation With Law Enforcement' 'drug Rehabilitation']

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

Criminal Sentencing Crown Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed individually and in total were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentence for possession of heroin for the purpose of supply should have been cumulative rather than concurrent.' 'Whether the sentence for entering a building as a trespasser with intent to steal and theft adequately reflected the seriousness of that conduct.' 'Whether the head sentence should be suspended after two months or whether a non-parole period should be fixed.' "What reductions were appropriate for the respondent's guilty pleas and promised future co-operation with law enforcement agencies."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed below was manifestly inadequate because the drug offence was a separate and distinct series of transactions that should have been made cumulative, the 12 month sentence that would have been imposed for the trespass and theft offences was a quite inadequate marking of serious criminal conduct involving theft of substantial cash and jewellery, and release after two months failed to reflect the degree of criminality. After allowing for guilty pleas and a one-third reduction for promised co-operation, the proper aggregate head sentence was four years with a two year non-parole period commencing 21 January 1996.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory set aside and substituted sentences imposed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' "In relation to the offence of armed robbery, a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment." "In relation to the offence of common assault, a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence for armed robbery." "In relation to the offence of entering a building as a...