The offender was sentenced following a plea of guilty to 1 count of improper possession of an Australian travel document contrary to the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth). Offender was sentenced for additional state offences. Original sentence imposed 3 years and 2 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. Offender appealed on the ground that the total sentence and non-parole period breached the totality principle.
Recognizance Release Order: Offender submitted that the sentencing judge failed to state their reasons for declining a recognizance release order under s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Sentencing judge stated their reason. There was a misnomer in the sentencing judge’s reference to a ‘non-parole period’, but the reason is nevertheless sufficiently clear. A recognizance release order would have been inappropriate and futile given the federal sentence was to be served concurrently with the State sentences and on expiry of the federal sentence the offender would still be serving the State sentences. Sentencing judge’s reason was entered in the Reasons, not the formal Record of Orders. Offender did not rely on any possible error in this regard, though any such error would not be a ground enlivening the court’s power to re-sentence in any event.
Leave to appeal refused.
Recognizance Release Order: Offender submitted that the sentencing judge failed to state their reasons for declining a recognizance release order under s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Sentencing judge stated their reason. There was a misnomer in the sentencing judge’s reference to a ‘non-parole period’, but the reason is nevertheless sufficiently clear. A recognizance release order would have been inappropriate and futile given the federal sentence was to be served concurrently with the State sentences and on expiry of the federal sentence the offender would still be serving the State sentences. Sentencing judge’s reason was entered in the Reasons, not the formal Record of Orders. Offender did not rely on any possible error in this regard, though any such error would not be a ground enlivening the court’s power to re-sentence in any event.
Leave to appeal refused.
