Federal Court of Australia
fe TOS
Peers
te) ot
Qe dar wide le
ten ol eT
we ae
See alk ee
fare ee nels
hee per ee wee ee - - oon
BF"
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
) ) NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NTG 20 of 1983 ) )
GENERAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: . GLEN WILLIAM KELLY Appellant and THE QUEEN Respondent ORDER
JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Woodward, Sheppard and Neaves JJ. DATE OF ORDER : 28 September 1983
WHERE MADE
Darwin
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
Mate
Se aranenetree
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NTG 20 of 1983
GENERAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: GLEN WILLIAM KELLY Appellant and THE QUEEN Respondent
CORAM: Woodward, Sheppard and Neaves JJ.
DATE: 28 September 1983
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WOODWARD J:
In this case, counsel appearing to assist the Court have said everything that could be said by way of challenge to the sentence that has been imposed. However, I find that the sentencing judge went to great pains to set out the various considerations which he took into account before passing sentence.
There is nothing to suggest that he took into account any matters
which he ought not to have, or failed to take into account any
se,
matters that he should have, and I am unable to see that there is any way in which it could be suggested that his Honour's
discretion has miscarried.
The only point which counsel was able to draw attention to, which might, as he said, give him an opportunity to get his foot in the door, was his Honour's failure, when he came to deal with the question of a parole period, to make reference to the nature of the offence as well as the antecedents of the offender. However, it cannot be thought that his Honour was in any way unaware of the nature of the offence, because he had dealt with 1t carefully in other parts of his sentence. And I think it is clear that the relevant section of the Parole of Prisoners Act N.T. (1971-1982), s.4 sub-s.(3) requires that the nature of the offence and the antecedents of the offender be taken into account jointly. It is not necessary that two separate reasons should be found, one based on each factor, before a decision is reached not to fix a
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate