Salasch v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 119

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Salasch v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 119

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory – adequacy of direction concerning joint criminal enterprise – extent of responsibility for actual bodily harm occasioned by an assault that did not commence as joint criminal enterprise CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – error in application of Parole Act – whether failure to take account of s 360 of the Crimes Act – whether appellant precluded from the benefit of Crimes Act, s 360 – whether totality principle offended – whether parity principle offended – whether sentencing judge erred in making certain findings of fact – whether sentences manifestly excessive Parole Act 1976 (ACT), ss 5, 7, 8, 20, 22, 24, 25 Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), ss 164(2)(a) and (d) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 4, 24, 354, 360 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 considered Tran v The Queen (2000) 105 FCR 182 considered Conway v The Queen (2002) 186 ALR 328 cited Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545 discussed R v Donnelly [2001] NSWCCA 394 referred Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316 cited R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 referred Williams (1990) 50 A Crim R 213 referred Palmer v The Queen [1971] AC 814 referred R v Tikos (No 2) [1963] VR 306 referred House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 referred Keen v The Queen [2000] FCA 940 applied Geiger v The Queen [2001] 112 FCR 79 applied Massey v The Queen [2001] FCA 1703 applied R v Holder and Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 referred Bakhos (1989) 39 A Crim R 174 referred Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459 referred Zocchi (2000) 116 A Crim R 245 referred Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 applied Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 applied Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 referred