The Queen v. Valentini, Antony & Anor [1980] FCA 159

CATCHWORDS

Criminal law ~- Sentences ~- Whether too lenient - Whether

suspended sentences appropriate ~- Interference with discretion

of trial judge.

The Criminal Law Consolidation Act and Ordinance, s.28;

Criminal Law and Procedure Ordinance 1978, s.7; Criminal Law

(Conditional Release of Offenders) Ordinance, s.6.

THE QUEEN v. ANTONY VALENTINI and GORDON JAMES GARVIE

Nos. NTG 15-16 of 1980

Coram: Bowen C.J., Muirhead and Evatt JJ.

13 November 1980.

Sydney.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTPICT REGISTPY Nos. MTG 15-16 of 1980

) ) ) GENERAL DIVISION )

OX APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

PLUTWEEN: THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:

ANTONY VALFNTINI and Gopnan JAMES

GARVIE Respondents ORDER JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Bowen C.J., Muirhead and Evatt JJ. DATE OF ORDER: 13 November 1980. WHERE MADE: Sydney.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the appeals be dismissed.

IN TRE FEDDRAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) ) NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY) Nos. NTG 15-16 of 19€0 ) )

GEYFRAL DIVISION

ON APPEAI, from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

RF TWEEN: THE QUEEN

, Appellant

AND:

ANTONY VALENTINI and GOPDON JAMES GARVIE- SSS

Respondents

CORAM: Bowen C.J., Muirhead and Evatt JJ.

13 November 1980.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are two appeals by the Crown pursuant to para.24(1) (b) and sub-s.28(5) of the Federal Court cf Australia Act 1976 against sentences imposed by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 4 July 1980. It was aqreed the appeals should be heard together. The respondents pleaded guilty to charges of armed robbery and shooting with intent

under s .163 of The Criminal Law Consolidation Act and

Ordinance and s.2@ of that Act in conjunction with s.7 of the

Criminal Law and Precedure Ordinance 1°78. The leaerred triel

Judge sentenced each respondent to two years imprisonment with hard labour on each charge, such sentences to ke serve. concurrently. No non-parole period was fixed but crecutior of the sentences was suspended upon cach respondent entering into his own recognizance in the sum of $5,000 to he cf good behaviour for a period of two years. His Honour added the further conditions that the respondents submit to the supervision of the Director of Correctional Services or some other officer nominated by him either an the Northern Territory or South Australia and that they obey that cfificer's @irections about where they were to live and work and with whom they were to associate. The grounds of the Crown's appeal are as follows: That the trial Judge erred in: (a) amposing a manifestly inadequate sentence uron the respondents; (b) failing to give proper consideration to the retributive aspect of sentencing; (c) faisling to give proper consideration to the