Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland [2011] HCA 10

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ,

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

DIONNE MATTHEW LACEY APPELLANT

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND RESPONDENT

Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland [2011] HCA 10

7 April 2011

B40/2010

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 11 September 2009 and, in its place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

B W Farr SC with J A Fraser and A D Scott for the appellant (instructed by Howden Saggers Lawyers)

W Sofronoff QC, Solicitor-General of the State of Queensland with E S Wilson and G J D del Villar for the respondent (instructed by Crown Solicitor (Qld))

Interveners

S J Gageler SC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with A M Dinelli intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia with C L Conley intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by State Solicitor (WA))

M G Sexton SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales with L A Babb SC and J G Renwick intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (instructed by Crown Solicitor (NSW))

M G Hinton QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with K Hodder intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor (SA))

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

CATCHWORDS

Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland

Criminal law – Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Appeal by Crown – Where s 669A(1) of Criminal Code (Q) permitted appeal by Attorney-General against sentence and provided that appellate court "may in its unfettered discretion vary the sentence and impose such sentence as to the Court seems proper" – Where appellate court increased sentence without identifying any error by sentencing judge – Whether Crown must demonstrate error by sentencing judge before discretion to vary sentence enlivened.