Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ,

GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ

Matter No S142/2010

ANTHONY JOSEPH LUIS HILI APPLICANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Matter No S143/2010

GLYN MORGAN JONES APPLICANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Hili v The Queen

Jones v The Queen

[2010] HCA 45

8 December 2010

S142/2010 & S143/2010

ORDER

Matter No S142/2010

1. Special leave to appeal granted on grounds one to six inclusive of the draft notice of appeal.

2. Appeal treated as instituted and heard instanter, and dismissed.

Matter No S143/2010

1. Special leave to appeal granted on grounds one to six inclusive of the draft notice of appeal, but refused on ground seven.

2. Appeal treated as instituted and heard instanter, and dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation

J T Svehla with R J Webb for the applicants in both matters (instructed by Snelgroves)

P W Neil SC for the respondent in both matters (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Hili v The Queen

Jones v The Queen

Criminal law – Sentence – Principles – Federal offences – Applicants pleaded guilty to federal offences – Prosecution successfully appealed on ground of manifest inadequacy against head sentences and recognizance release orders imposed by sentencing judge – Court of Criminal Appeal stated that "the 'norm' for a period of mandatory imprisonment under the Commonwealth legislation is between 60 and 66% [of head sentence]" – Whether any judicially determined "norm" for ratio between time to be served in custody by federal offender and length of head sentence imposed – How consistency in federal sentencing to be achieved – Whether sentences imposed by sentencing judge manifestly inadequate – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal's reasons sufficient.