New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Regina v William John Walters [2001] NSWSC 786 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70076/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 23 August 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 August 2001 PARTIES : Regina William John Walters JUDGMENT OF : Sully J at 1 COUNSEL : P. J. Renehan - Crown J. B. Bishop - Prisoner SOLICITORS : J. Armstrong - Commonwealth DPP C. Adamson - Paclaw Solicitors - Prisoner LEGISLATION CITED : Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 DECISION : See pars. 7 and 8 of judgment - 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION 70076/99 SULLY J Thursday 23 August 2001 REGINA v WILLIAM JOHN WALTERS JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The Court has been asked to entertain an application pursuant to s 19AH of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, being an application to correct aspects of the structuring of the sentences passed upon Mr William John Walters on Friday 27 July last. 2 It is not necessary to repeat now the detail of the way in which the sentences were structured. That detail speaks for itself and will be found in pars 64 and 65 of the Remarks on Sentence which have been transcribed; and a file copy of which remains for any necessary future reference with the principal Court file. 3 Put very simply, it is submitted that the way in which the sentences have been structured, or more precisely, the terms in which that structuring has been expressed, have managed to fall foul of the provisions of s 19AB of the Act and in particular of s 19AB(1). The nub of the problem, as I have followed the submissions which I have heard this morning, is that the structure adopted in pars 64 and 65 of the Remarks on Sentence does not "Fix a single non-parole period in respect of" all of the sentences in fact passed upon Mr Walters and as required by s 19AB(1)(d). 4 The way in which the sentences were in fact structured represents a practice well entrenched in the Supreme Court. It is a practice, as with all sentencing, which is followed routinely in any Court in New South Wales which is dealing with cumulative sentences. It is simple, logical and practical. It is understood by all those who have to deal with matters of that character. If, and insofar as, it is correct to understand that that entrenched practise somehow or other does not sit properly within the ambit of the combined effect of s 19 and s 19AB of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, then there exists an anomalous state of affairs as to which I would respectfully suggest to those concerned in proper authority, that there should be some prompt amendment of the legislation. 5 No sensible reading of pars 64 and 65 of the Remarks on Sentence in the present case could leave any intelligent person in the slightest doubt as to what it was that the Court was intending to do. It is, I presume to say with all proper emphasis, wrong in this day and age that it should be necessary to prefer the complicated to the simple in something as important as the proper sentencing of offenders for Commonwealth offences. 6 Be that as it may, if there is any doubt about it, and I daresay that at least so much could hardly be contradicted, the better course would undoubtedly be to make whatever cosmetic adjustments are necessary in order to meet the situation, unfortunate as it is that it has arisen. 7 To that end I amend par 64 in my Remarks on Sentence so that wherever the words "a fixed term" appear, those words will be deleted and there will be inserted in lieu the words "a sentence". 8 In addition, par 64 will be further amended by inserting at the end of the paragraph these words: "In order to give effect to the foregoing structure of sentences in a fashion that complies with s 19AB(1)(d) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act , I set formally a non-parole period of six years in connection with all of the sentences variously imposed in connection with the ten counts to which reference is made in par 64." ********** Last Modified: 09/07/2001 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.