Involves backdating Xxxxxxx sex body video chat people rollete
In Hili v The Queen at , the High Court reviewed similar cases and dismissed the appeal because the sentences were very much lower than those imposed in the closely comparable interstate cases: R v Wheatley (2007) 67 ATR 531;  VCC 718 and Ly v R  NSWCCA 28.
In R v Nikolovska  NSWCCA 169 at  (decided after Hili v The Queen), the Court of Criminal Appeal extracted cases from Mc Clellan CJ at CL’s schedule (which included interstate cases) in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa because they “provide[d] some insight into the relevant sentencing range: (cf Hili v The Queen at )”.
In Putland v The Queen at , the High Court held that s 68 has no operation if “a Commonwealth law expressly or by implication made contrary provision, or … which is complete on its face”, citing The Queen v Gee (2003) 212 CLR 230 at .
It has been held that: It should be noted that s 20C Crimes Act 1914 provides that children and young persons may be tried and punished for federal offences in accordance with the law of the State or Territory in which they were charged or convicted. The terms Commonwealth offences and federal offences are used interchangeably below.
comparable cases decided by intermediate courts of appeal provide the most useful guidance to a sentencing judge.
An appellate court’s reasons reveal the mix of factors that were taken into account and will usually involve consideration of the appropriateness of the sentence imposed at first instance.
It was an error for the Court of Appeal to rely only on Victorian appeal cases to the exclusion of other jurisdictions in determining whether the respondent’s sentence was manifestly excessive: The Queen v Pham at , .
Chief Justice Gleeson’s statement in Wong v The Queen was cited with approval in Hili v The Queen at .The principle also applies to common law (sentencing) principles: CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (2009) 239 CLR 390 at ; R v NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628 at .