//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] ACTCA 2
Court of Appeal (ACT)
2003-02-10
Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Madgwick J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
David Muir v The Queen [2003] ACTCA 2 (10 February 2003)
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. ACTCA 61-2001
No. SCA 8 of 2002
Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Madgwick J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 10 February 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 61 - 2001
) No. SCA 8 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: DAVID MUIR
Appellant
AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent
ORDER
Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Madgwick J
Date: 10 February 2003
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 61 - 2002
) No. SCA 8 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: DAVID MUIR
Appellant
AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent
Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Madgwick J
Date: 10 February 2003
Place: Canberra
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIGGINS CJ:
The Court has come to a concluded view about the disposition of the appeal. For my part, I will simply state shortly, that it seems to me that, in the circumstances in which this sentencing process was carried out, it is unlikely that s 16G (Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)) was not given effect to by his Honour and if it were necessary to come to a positive finding about it, I am satisfied that it was taken into account in fixing the sentence, in the sense that, of course, any adjustment that needed to be made to the sentence for any remissions or reductions in sentence was given effect to.
The onus, of course, is on the appellant to establish that there was error and I am not satisfied that any error existed. I would say too that the sentence imposed does not appear, even when I am consciously taking section 16G into account for my part, to be manifestly erroneous and I would therefore dismiss the appeal.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.
Associate:
Date: 24 February 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 61 - 2002
) No. SCA 8 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: DAVID MUIR
Appellant
AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent
Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Madgwick J
Date: 10 February 2003
Place: Canberra
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CRISPIN P
Associate:
Date: 24 February 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 61 - 2002
) No. SCA 8 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: DAVID MUIR
Appellant
AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent
Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Madgwick J
Date: 10 February 2003
Place: Canberra
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MADGWICK J
I do think it very likely that in fact his Honour did take s 16G into account. Not only was the matter adverted to by counsel in submission, but as the transcript makes clear, his Honour had an active interest in the point and a degree of Australia-wide knowledge of sentencing practice and a degree of mild reproof of the Crown on one aspect that makes it clear that it was a matter very present to his mind during the hearing.
He had a written note from counsel for the Crown about the point that must have brought it back to him when he came to prepare his remarks on sentence. Further, the remarks on sentence were, in their nature, principally responsive to differences in approach or emphasis between the parties.
In any event, for myself, I go a bit further than my brethren. It seems to me that is is impossible to say that a proper application of section 16G to these very serious instances of repeated white collar crime could produce a result of a non-parole period of less than three years and six months or total head sentences of less than seven and a half years. And for those reasons I too would dismiss the appeal. I certify that the preceding paragraphs numbered four (4) to six (6) are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Madgwick.
Associate:
Date: 24 February 2003
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr J Purnell SC
Solicitor for the Appellant: Baker Deane & Nutt
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J White
Solicitor for the Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing: 10 February 2003
Date of judgment: 10 February 2003
More Information
Where to go
Find my hearing date & time
For Jurors
For Witnesses
For Defendants
Forms
Information for Media
Read a Supreme Court judgment
Read a Magistrates Court decision
Muir
R [2003] ACTCA 2