Petreski v Cargill, P.J. [1986] FCA 586

N FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACT G 80 of 1986 DISTRICT REGISTRY

Pa

-

wee ew a

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN : DARRIN BAYDON ROGERS Applicant AND: IVAN WHITE Respondent

CORAM: Neaves J. DATE: 12 December 1986

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant, Darrin Baydon Rogers, has applied for bail pending the hearing of an appeal instituted by him in this Court against a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 10 December 1986. The Supreme Court had before it appeals by the applicant against the severity of the sentences imposed upon him in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 5 May 1986 in respect of 26 charges under s.29B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The learned magistrate imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment on the first charge, anda similar sentence on each of the remaining charges. All except one of the sentences on the remaining charges were to be served concurrently with the sentence upon the first charge, the sentence on the remaining charge to be served cumulatively upon the sentence upon the

first charge so that effectively the applicant was sentenced to

aterm of imprisonment of 18 months. The magistrate fixed a non-parole period of 10 months and further directed that the applicant be released after serving six months' imprisonment upon entering into a recognizance self in the sum of $500 to be

of good behaviour for 3 years. The amount of money involved in

the charges for which the applicant was sentenced was $18,435.

The applicant's appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed and the sentences imposed by the magistrate confirmed. The applicant has appealed to this Court seeking to have the orders of the Supreme Court set aside and the matter remitted to that Court for further hearing. The ground of appeal as set out in the notice of appeal filed herein is that the Supreme Court erred in law in finding that an appeal to that Court against sentence is not a hearing de novo and in deciding that it was necessary to discover an error in the