Commonwealth Sentencing Database

The purpose of the Commonwealth Sentencing Database is to provide judicial officers and other users with rapid and easy access to information about sentencing for Commonwealth offences.

Click on the links on the menu bar to access:

  • the ‘Principles and Practice’ component (a guide for judicial officers and practitioners to federal sentencing)
  • the ‘Statistics’ component (statistical information on sentences by courts for federal offences)
  • the Publications list (a list of reports and articles on federal sentencing)

Below is a quick guide to recent cases, legislation and updates to commentary. This area is updated with new cases by NJCA researchers on a weekly basis. Click on the arrows to see a full summary.

To subscribe to regular updates on Commonwealth sentencing, click here.

Follow us on Twitter @JudicialCollAUS.

Recent Federal Cases

17 July 2017 — Rajabizadeh v The Queen [2017] WASCA 133 — drug importation offences — totality principle — See Summary 

— appeal against sentence — attempting to possess and actual possession of marketable quantity of border controlled drug offences contrary to ss 308.1(1) and (3) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with 7 year non-parole period — totality principle — sentencing judge correct in saying only immediate custodial sentence appropriate — sentencing judge in error in application of totality principle — total sentence did not properly reflect fact that two different types of drugs formed part of same parcel and offender engaged in single act of attempting to possess that parcel — relatively limited reduction in total sentence did not reflect the substantial common elements between the two counts — comparable cases indicate sentence imposed very high — appeal allowed — offender resentenced — 7 year and 6 month custodial sentence imposed with 5 year non-parole period

7 July 2017 — DPP (Cth) v Besim; DPP (Cth) v MHK (No 3) [2017] VSCA 180 — preparatory terrorism offences — community protection — continuing detention order — See Summary 

— appeal against sentence — acts in preparation of or planning for a terrorist offence contrary to s 101.6 of Commonwealth Criminal Code — continuing detention order under Division 105A of Commonwealth Criminal Code — community protection and incapacitation of offender — whether application of Division 105A diminishes or affects sentencing principles — consideration of Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14 — weight given to protection of community cannot produce sentence which is disproportionate to criminality of offence — protection of community cannot produce sentence which serves function of preventative detention — court’s consideration whether to make continuing detention order under Division 105A significantly different than determining sentence — only theoretical possibility that an application for continuing detention could be made at completion of term of imprisonment —protection of community to be taken into account at time of apprehension of offender and at time of sentence — determining whether to make continuing detention order would take place within 12 months of completion of offender’s sentence and directed to different questions — not necessary to express conclusion whether provisions in Division 105A would in every case be irrelevant — sufficient to conclude that any relevance of Division 105A might have to determination of sentences would be marginal — appeal dismissed

30 June 2017 — Lee v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 156 — drug importation offence — De Simoni principle — See Summary 

— appeal against sentence — drug importation offence contrary to s 307.3 of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 6 years’ imprisonment with 3 year and 6 month non-parole period — gross weight of methamphetamine 3.2 kg — purity test of substance not carried out — marketable quantity 2 grams — application of R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31 and Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17 — sentencing judge would have been in error to take into account matter that would have rendered offender liable for more serious offence — inferred that sentencing judge had in mind 2 grams or more — appeal allowed — offender resentenced — 3 year custodial sentence imposed and released on recognizance release order after 1 year and 9 months

29 June 2017 — R v Jafari [2017] NSWCCA 152 — theft against the Commonwealth offence — custodial sentence — contrition — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — theft offence contrary to s 131.1(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 2 year custodial sentence served by way of ICO — offender senior lawyer at Australian Government Solicitor — stole money from trust established by Commonwealth — beneficiary injured former solider of Australian Defence Force — custodial sentence — sentencing judge in error in considering no part of sentence should be served in prison — nothing but custodial sentence would suffice to fulfil requirements of general and specific deterrence and authoritative denunciation of offender’s wrongdoing — individual beneficiary suffered loss due to offender’s conduct — adverse consequences for public trust in legal profession — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — pecuniary penalty order made under s 320(d) of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) pursuant to ICO — no pecuniary penalty order made at time of sentencing — application of R v Host [2015] WASCA 23 — s 320(d) does not permit a sentencing court to take fact of payment of pecuniary penalty order into account — fact that order was made by consent may provide evidence of contrition under s 320(a) — arguably not made entirely consensually but as condition of ICO — remorse appears to have arisen only in face of inevitable conviction and likely custodial sentence — no evidence before Court indicating remorse for beneficiary — fact that offender had access to property which could have been sold to allow funds to be replaced demonstrates ongoing unwillingness to recognise true extent of offending — appeal allowed — offender resentenced — ICO cannot be imposed as new sentence exceeds 2 years — 3 year custodial sentence imposed and released on recognizance release order after 18 months

23 June 2017 — DPP (Cth) v Besim [2017] VSCA 158 — preparatory terrorism offences — rehabilitation — young offender — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — acts in preparation of or planning for a terrorist offence contrary to s 101.6 of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 10 years’ imprisonment with 7 year and 6 month non-parole period — deterrence — application of DPP (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157 — substantial weight given to general deterrence and protection of community in terrorism cases — that offender indicated intention to be killed during attack does not reduce the importance of general deterrence — rehabilitation — rehabilitation could not be regarded as form of assurance of community protection as no basis for finding that offender had changed his views — application of Lodhi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 360 — rehabilitation and personal circumstances given les weight in terrorism cases — youth — offender aged 18 at time of offending — application of DPP (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157 — the greater the objective gravity of the offence, rehabilitation will be given greater weight than general deterrence, denunciation and retribution — high moral culpability — terrorism offences always considered extremely grave — extremely serious example of the offence due to fact that police officer was targeted for beheading, that killing to take place publicly and on ANZAC Day, and offender’s willingness to kill innocent victims— distinguished Benbrika v The Queen [2010] VSCA 281 — appeal allowed— offender resentenced — 14 year custodial sentence imposed with 10 year and 6 month non-parole period

23 June 2017 — DPP (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157 — preparatory terrorism offences — young offender — rehabilitation — guilty plea — deterrence — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — acts in preparation of or planning for a terrorist offence contrary to s 101.6 of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 7 years’ imprisonment with 5 year and 3 month non-parole period — youth — offender aged 17 at time of offending — offender young and impressionable and more prone to being corrupted than an older person — youth given less weight as offender old enough to know that what he was doing was grossly wrong, to give some thought to enormity of actions he was planning to carry out and to resist the allure of the influence of Islamic State — rehabilitation — offender’s reformation and rehabilitation far from complete — offender did not demonstrate to a sufficient degree a sense of contrition for planned acts — rehabilitation undergone in environment where offender sheltered from kind of influences that initially impelled him to engage in offending conduct — guilty plea — illustrative of offender’s subjective willingness to facilitate the course of justice — offender prepared to give evidence, face cross-examination and renounce and denounce Islamic State — comparable cases — similar preparatory cases few in number which limits utility in establishing appropriate range of sentences — primacy given to general deterrence and denunciation above personal circumstances of the offender — criminal justice system will not have sufficiently discharged duty to express community’s outrage of conduct of offender and to deter other like-minded individuals if general deterrence and denunciation not given appropriate weight — distinguished Benbrika v The Queen [2010] VSCA 281 where significantly lower sentences were imposed for very serious terrorism offences — sentences within range at that time — no such sentences would have been imposed today having regard to scourge of modern terrorism and development of sentencing principles — appeal allowed — offender resentenced —11 year custodial sentence imposed with 8 year and 3 month year non-parole period

23 June 2017 — DPP (Cth) v Brown [2017] VSCA 162 — drug importation offences — nature and circumstances of the offence — course of conduct — role of offender — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — drug importation offences contrary to s 307.1(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original total effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment with 7 year non-parole period imposed — nature and circumstances of the offence — high objective seriousness — very large quantities of drugs — first importation involved nearly 4.5 times commercial quantity — second importation involved approximately 60 times commercial quantity — ‘street’ value of drugs between $45.3 million and $60.4 million — application of Nguyen v The Queen [2011] VSCA 32 — quantities represented importation on ‘massive scale’ — no guilty plea — no co-operation with authorities — offending assumed to be motivated by greed as offender anticipated profiting from role — course of conduct — offending took place over four months — duration significant as showed purposeful offending, offender had time to reflect and offending not spontaneous — role of offender — degree of involvement depends on substance of matter, not label which may be attached to it — offender did not sit at top of hierarchy but had been entrusted with considerable responsibility given quantity of drugs commissioned to him to handle — offender played executive role — offender autonomous and operative within designated sphere of operations — may not have known quantities being imported at time of first importation but did not withdraw from enterprise when learnt of quantities — offender well aware of scale of importation — utility of comparable cases — sentencing judge not in error by relying on table provided by Director — not inconsistent with The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39 — application of DPP (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237 — table provided ‘sufficient information about the features of each case’ to enable useful comparisons to be drawn — general deterrence to be given greater weight in drug importation cases — appeal allowed — offender resentenced — total effective sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment imposed with non-parole period of 15 years

23 June 2017 — DPP (Cth) v El Sabsabi [2017] VSCA 160 — preparatory foreign incursion offences — custodial sentence — rehabilitation — delay — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — acts preparatory to commission of a foreign incursion offences contrary to s 7(1)(e) of Crimes (Foreign Incursion and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth) — offender sentenced to 44 day custodial sentence on first charge — sentenced to 2 year CCO on second charge — s 17A(1) —  custodial sentence must not be imposed unless Court satisfied no other sentence appropriate in all circumstances of the case — sentencing judge not in error by not imposing custodial sentence for second charge — passing of custodial sentence on first charge does not mandate a term of imprisonment be required for second charge — objective seriousness of the offence — sentencing judge in error by overstating objective seriousness of the offence — application of R v Succareih [2017] QCA 85 — where offence does not contain an element that offender’s conduct was in furtherance of terrorism offender should not be sentenced as if the offence contained such an element — offender’s statements about his particular beliefs in relation to killing in the name of Allah or creation of an Islamic caliphate must be taken into account but are not matters that elevate the objective seriousness of actual offences — rehabilitation — sentencing judge not in error by observing that offender’s rehabilitation was ‘well advanced’ — offender had complied with bail conditions and had been productively employed for more than two years following release from custody — delay — sentencing judge not in error by accepting proposition that delay was indicative ‘to some degree’ of AFP’s view of gravity of offending — sentencing judge’s assessment of seriousness of offender’s conduct significant for purposes of sentencing  rather than AFP’s assessment — appeal dismissed

23 June 2017 — Aboud v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 140 — sexual harassment offences — delay — non-parole period — co-operation — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — sexual offending or harassment offences via the internet contrary to ss 474.17(1), 417.26(1) and 417.27(1) Commonwealth Criminal Code — delay — delay of four years from offender’s initial arrest until re-arrest — delay not caused by conduct of offender — ‘uncertain suspense’ — considered Sabra v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 38 — not necessary for offender to establish detrimental consequences of delay — delay so obvious and egregious that sentencing judge aware of existence and significance — sentencing judge correctly took into account delay by characterising it as ‘substantial and really inexcusable’ — non-parole period — 75% of total effective sentence — considered Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 — considered Afiouny v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 23 — sentencing judge not in error by not giving reasons for imposing particular non-parole period — co-operation — s 16A(2)(h) — offender voluntarily supplied passwords and account details to police at time of initial arrest — sentencing judge made no reference to offender’s co-operation or s 16A(2)(h) — sentencing judge not in error by stating that offender had ‘little option’ but to plead guilty on one hand and proposition that details of offending only became available after access to Facebook account had been provided on other hand — important admission that offender was owner and sole user of relevant Facebook accounts — concession that purpose of Facebook accounts was to talk to young females particularly significant — churlish for offender to have denied access to passwords in  the circumstances — offender’s provision of passwords to police was commendable but not critical — leave to appeal against sentence granted — appeal dismissed

23 June 2017 — Zaky v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 141 — Commonwealth fraud offence — incorrect statement of maximum penalty — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — defrauding the Commonwealth offence contrary to s 29D of Crimes Act 1914 — obtaining a financial advantage by deception offences contrary to s 134.2(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — sentencing judge incorrectly specified maximum penalty as 20 years’ imprisonment instead of 10 years’ imprisonment — not material error —clear indications sentencing judge aware of maximum penalty — sentencing judge’s incorrect statement an inadvertent misstatement which did not affect the sentence imposed — even if error was material, sentence should not be reduced — application for leave to appeal against sentence granted — appeal dismissed

22 June 2017 — DPP (Cth) v Singh [2017] VSCA 146 — procurement of person under 16 for sexual activity offence — custodial sentence — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — using a carriage service to procure a person under 16 years to engage in sexual activity offence contrary to s 474.26(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 3 year CCO and $2,000 fine — custodial sentence — well-established that offenders who use internet for such offences will ordinarily receive an immediate custodial sentence — immediate custodial sentence need not be imposed in every case of offending contrary to s 474.26 — non-custodial sentencing options should be very rare and for exceptional cases — immediate custodial sentence imposed if appeal court exercising sentencing discretion — sentence remarkably lenient but not wholly outside available range of sentences — appeal dismissed

9 June 2017 — Van Zwam v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 127 — drug importation offence — contrition — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — drug importation offence contrary to s 307.1 of Commonwealth Criminal Code — contrition — sentencing judge in error by finding no genuine evidence of remorse or contrition in absence of applicant giving evidence on oath subject to cross-examination — sentencing judge entitled to give evidence of remorse and contrition in affidavit less weight than evidence given orally but not entitled to disregard it altogether — sentencing judge not entitled to reject evidence where no challenge or dispute by way of cross-examination — offender not called to give evidence not an indication that the offender was not prepared to subject himself to cross-examination on the affidavit — offender’s good character and circumstances by which offender drawn into offending do not make statements of remorse and contrition in affidavit inherently implausible — leave to appeal against sentence granted — 8 year and 6 month custodial sentence imposed with 4 year and 6 month non-parole period

30 May 2017 — R v Asaad [2017] QCA 108 — financial dishonesty offence— totality principle — co-operation — deportation — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — dishonestly obtaining financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity offence contrary to s 134.2(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — totality principle — no error in sentencing judge’s application of totality principle — offender had significant and serious criminal history — offender sentenced for subject offence many years after being sentenced for earlier offending — artificial and complex to require sentencing judge to have to ask what would likely be the head sentence imposed if offender had been sentenced for past and subject offences at same time — considered that if offender’s criminal history reveals he committed distinctly different types of fraudulent offending during only partly overlapping periods of time it could not be assumed that sentence for subject offence would have attracted any significant moderation on account of sentences for other offending — co-operation — sentencing judge not in error by not taking into account assistance the offender was said to have provided to law enforcement agencies in relation to a previous sentence — no evidence before sentencing judge about suggested assistance or what risks offender may or may not have faced as a result of it — deportation — offender currently on spousal visa — more than speculative possibility that offender will be deported as Minister must cancel such a visa if satisfied the person holding it does not pass the character test under s 501(6)(a) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) — person will not pass character test if they have been sentenced to 12 month or more custodial sentence — no express evidence that offender would experience hardship as a result of deportation — sentencing judge not in error by inferring that offender would suffer hardship as a result of deportation as offender had lived in Australia for a long time and had a wife and family in Australia including a disabled son for whom the offender cared — application for leave to appeal against sentence refused — appeal dismissed

24 May 2017 — R v Choi; R v Pereira [2017] SASCFC 54 — proceeds of crime offence — course of conduct — guilty plea — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — dealing with money where reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime offence contrary to s 400.9(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — offenders Singaporean citizens — course of conduct — sentencing judge in error by stating there was a clear inference from circumstances of this offending that it was not the first time Pereira had committed such an offence — Pereira travelled to Australia on four separate occasions in months preceding arrest — information presented to court regarding trips limited to date, place and duration — uncharged acts may be taken into account for sentencing purposes to determine the context in which an offence was committed — finding made by sentencing judge as to purpose of prior trips went beyond fixing context — contrary to principle in R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31 where offender cannot be punished for an offence for which they have not been convicted — guilty plea — Pereira granted 30% discount for guilty plea — Choi granted discount of 33.3% for guilty plea — offenders caught ‘red-handed’ — no realistic option available to them other than to enter prompt guilty plea — quantum of guilty plea discounts not in error — irrelevant that offenders would have received greater discount under s 10B of Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) — Pereira resentenced to 11 month custodial sentence to be released after 7 months on recognizance release order — Choi resentenced to maintain parity with sentence imposed on Pereira — Choi resentenced to 8 month custodial sentence to be released after 5 months on recognizance release order

12 May 2017 —  R v Succarieh; R v Succarieh; Ex parte DPP (Cth) [2017] QCA 85— foreign incursion offences — manifest excess — rehabilitation — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — preparation for and giving money to incursions into a foreign state offences contrary to ss 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(e) of Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 — utility of past sentences for foreign incursion offences — sentencing judge not in error by characterising earlier decisions of limited assistance — contemporary circumstances changed since past decisions — distinguished from R v Alqudsi [2016] NSWSC 1227 — offending conduct in R v Alqudsi higher objective seriousness — manifest excess — US$43,700 given by offender not inconsequential contribution — offender effectively contributed substantial sum on basis that it could be used directly or indirectly in the carrying out of hostilities in Syria — sentence not manifestly excessive — Crown’s appeal against sentence — rehabilitation — offender not renouncing fundamentalist religious views does not mean prospects of rehabilitation are adversely affected — fundamentalist religious views need only to be ameliorated to point where they no longer govern one’s obedience to local domestic law — such amelioration established in offender’s letter to sentencing judge — sentencing judge not in error in characterising offender’s prospects of rehabilitation — manifest inadequacy — sentencing judge fully comprehended high objective seriousness of offending — part of offender’s motivation was fundamentalist Islamic views — offender’s support for his brother and associates meant offender was able to vicariously participate in Syrian conflict — sentence not manifestly excessive — leave to appeal against sentence refused — appeal dismissed

10 May 2017 —  Miao v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 89 — child exploitation offences — guilty plea — rehabilitation — custodial sentence — See Summary 

 — appeal against sentence — use of a carriage service to access child pornography offence contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(i) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — state offence — guilty plea — offender pleaded guilty at completion of committal proceedings — delay in entering guilty plea caused by dispute relating to characterisation of child sex doll as child abuse material — sentencing judge not in error by awarding 20% discount rather than 25% discount — sentencing judge not in error by not having regard to delay — elements of one offence have no bearing on the timing of guilty pleas to the other two offences for which the sentence was imposed — objective gravity of the offence — no basis to infer that offender made a deliberate choice with respect to downloaded quantity of child pornographic material relative to quantity of adult pornography — accessing child pornography may result in downloads of range of pornographic material — assessment of objective gravity focuses on material that is the subject of the charges not its possession relative to material that is not the subject of any offence — no error in sentencing judge’s assessment of the objective gravity of the offence — rehabilitation — sentencing judge not in error in articulating number of problems with conclusions of psychologist’s report — did not reject psychologist’s opinion — paraphilia relevant to offender’s prospects of rehabilitation — treatment for depression and/or obsessive compulsive disorder would not necessarily address offender’s tendency to sexual perversion — custodial sentence — sentencing judge not in error by not applying Fedele v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 286 — sentencing judge not in error by imposing custodial sentence rather than ICO — custodial sentence properly reflected all applicable sentencing factors — length of sentence product of degree of accumulation which ruled out availability of alternatives to custodial sentence — application for leave to appeal sentence granted — appeal dismissed

Recent Legislative Amendments

27 November 2015 — Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Act 2015 (Cth) — amends Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) — See Summary 

­­

general deterrence — inserts new s 16A(2)(ja) — court to have regard to the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on other persons — Commentary on this amendment has been incorporated into the database, see Deterrence

co-operation — repeals s 21E — inserts new s 16AC — court can reduce sentence, order or non-parole period in recognition of undertaking to co-operate with law enforcement agencies — DPP given new right to appeal where offender has not co-operated in accordance with undertaking when offender’s sentence has expired — Commentary on this amendment has been incorporated into the database, see Co-operation

non-parole periods and recognizance release orders — repeals and replaces s 19AB — removes option for court to make a recognizance release order where the sentence imposed exceeds three years — inserts new s 19AB(2)–(3) — court can decline to set a non-parole period or fix a recognizance release order where offender expected to be serving a State or Territory sentence immediately after the end of the federal sentence — Commentary on this amendment has been incorporated into the database, see Non Parole Period and Recognizance Release Orders

rectification of errors — inserts new s 19AHA — sets out powers of court to correct Commonwealth sentencing orders which contain technical errors, defects of form, or ambiguity — Commentary on this amendment has been incorporated into the database, see Non Parole Period and Recognizance Release Orders

release on licence — inserts new s 19AP(4A) — matters to which the Attorney-General may have regard when deciding whether to grant a licence — extensive co-operation not already taken into account at sentence — serious medical treatment required — Commentary on this amendment has been incorporated into the database, see Release on Parole or Licence

parole — inserts new s 19AKA — purposes of parole are protection of the community, rehabilitation of the offender and reintegration of the offender into the community — Commentary on this amendment has been incorporated into the database, see Release on Parole or Licence

parole orders — inserts new s 19ALA — matters to which the Attorney-General may have regard when considering whether to make or refuse to make a parole order — inserts new s 19AL(4)–(6) — clarifies application of s 19AL when Attorney-General making parole orders for joint Commonwealth and State offenders — inserts new s 19AL(3A) — provides criteria for considering applications for early release on parole — repeals s 19AP(8)–(9) — inserts new s 19APA — expands power of Attorney-General to amend parole orders and licences — Commentary on this amendment has been incorporated into the database, see Release on Parole or Licence

conditional release — inserts new s 20(1A) — requires court to specify that where a person is subject to the supervision of a probation officer they will not travel interstate or overseas without the probation officers written permission

alternative sentencing options — repeals s 20AB(1) — inserts new s 20AB(1) — updates list of types of orders as alternatives to imprisonment that should be available for federal offenders — clarifies courts power to pass a similar sentence or order to the named orders

Recent Updates to Commentary

June 2017 — Victim Impact Statements —  See Summary 

— updated to include commentary on the use of victim impact statements under comparable state and territory sentencing regimes

May 2017 — Mental Condition — See Summary 

— updated to include commentary on new sentencing cases incorporating the Verdins principles where an offender’s mental condition may be taken into account as a mitigating factor

April 2017 — Guilty Plea — See Summary 

— updated to include commentary on whether a discount for a guilty plea is given on the subjective basis of the offender’s willingness to facilitate the course of justice or the objective basis of the utilitarian benefit of a guilty plea

March 2017 — Course of Conduct — See Summary 

— updated to include commentary on judicial inconsistency surrounding s 16A(2)(c) on whether a course of conduct refers only to uncharged criminal conduct, charged criminal conduct, representative charges, or the totality principle

February 2017 — Reparation OrdersSee Summary 

— updated to include commentary on courts exercising discretion to impose a reparation order, including the relevance of offender’s financial circumstances, reparation orders and co-offenders, and considerations when ordering reparation as a condition of discharge or release

January 2017 — CorporationsSee Summary 

— updated to include commentary on Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v CFMEU [2016] FCA 413 where court held s 4K does not apply to civil pecuniary penalty provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

October 2016 — Nature and Circumstances of the Offence — See Summary 

 — updated to include commentary on factors relevant to assessing the nature and circumstances of federal offences, including drug, alcohol and gambling addictions, premeditation, planning, motive, non-exculpatory duress, entrapment, the offender’s degree of participation, the profits from the offence and whether the offence involved a breach of trust

October 2016 — Offender’s Family and Dependants — See Summary 

 — updated to include commentary on the divergent approach of ACT courts to the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test in R v Weir [2015] ACTSC 394 and DPP (Cth) v Ip [2005] ACTCA 24, the relevance of international instruments to consideration of s 16A(2)(p), principles relevant to sentencing breastfeeding mothers and consideration of hardship to dependants as a result of co-operation

October 2016 — Hardship to the offender — See Summary 

 — updated to include commentary on hardship to the offender caused by the effect of the sentence on the offender’s dependants and the non-application of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test relevant to s 16A(2)(p) to consideration of such hardship

September 2016 — Conditional Release Orders after Conviction — See Summary 

 — updated to include amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) inserting new s 20(1A), the application of Dimech v Watts [2016] ACTSC 221 resolving that community service cannot be made a condition of release under s 20 and new commentary on factors to be taken into account when imposing a recognizance release order

September 2016 — Additional Sentencing Alternatives — See Summary 

 — updated to include amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which updated the list of state and territory sentencing options available to federal offenders and to include new commentary on principles relevant to imposing Intensive Correction Orders, Community Correction Orders and Intensive Supervision Orders, including the application of Antanackovic v The Queen [2015] VSCA and R v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174