
Published by Geoff Harrison | 6 December 2024
Section 20AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - ('the Act') provides the power for a court to impose a State based sentencing option for a Federal offence. As noted by the court in Vamadevan [57], the steps to be undertaken by a sentencing court before an intensive correction order can be imposed on a federal offender under s 20AB(1) of the Crimes Act are as follows:
(1) First, the sentencing court must be satisfied “after having considered all other available sentences” that “no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case” other than a sentence of imprisonment: s 17A(1).
(2) Secondly, the sentencing judge must “impose a sentence ... that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence”: s 16A(1).
(3) Thirdly, if none of the disentitling provisions contained in the NSW Sentencing Act (including the identified provisions of the Crimes Act and the Criminal Code summarised above at [11]) apply, then the sentencing court may consider whether or not to impose an intensive correction order. In doing so, the sentencing judge is obliged to consider the matters in s 16A of the Crimes Act and not s 66 of the NSW Sentencing Act. The sentencing court must, “in addition to any other matters”, take into account such of the matters in s 16A(2) “as are relevant and known to the court”.
The decision of Vamadevan overruled the decisions of Khanat v R (Cth) [2024 NSWCCA 41 and Chan v R [2023] NSWCCA 206.
A summary of the significant ICO provisions from the Judicial Bench Book relating to NSW offences can be found here.
Cases:
Comentários