• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The applicant, Stephen Matthew Wenitong, pleaded guilty in April 2000 to two offences committed on 24 February 1997: theft of a car and an armed bank robbery (para 2). A firearm was used and discharged during the robbery, and approximately $36,000 was stolen (para 2). The applicant admitted participation and made full admissions (para 2). He also had a substantial prior record and had been in custody since the day of the offences (para 5).

Before the County Court plea for robbery and theft, the applicant had been tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to 18 years with a non-parole period of 14 years on 4 November 1999 (para 5). When his pleas for the robbery and theft were dealt with in April 2000, the sentencing judge took into account parity with the co-offenders, the applicant's role as principal actor, his prior record and mitigating material, and imposed 8½ years for armed robbery and 12 months for the theft, with six months of the theft cumulative on the robbery, producing a nine-year effective sentence (para 11). The judge ordered that five years of the nine-year sentence be served cumulatively with the 18-year sentence for murder and fixed a new non-parole period of 18 years (para 11).

On 13 March 2001 this Court (Court of Appeal) allowed the applicant's appeal against his murder conviction, and on 5 June 2001 the Crown entered a nolle prosequi in relation to that charge (para 17). The result was that the nine-year effective sentence imposed for robbery and theft remained to be served, but the non-parole period previously fixed at 18 years no longer had a valid basis.

In August 2001 the applicant sought leave to appeal the sentences for robbery and theft. The Crown did not contest the grant of leave out of time, and the Court granted leave because of the peculiar circumstances (para 14). After hearing submissions, the Court declined to remit the matter to the sentencing judge under s.568(5) of the Crimes Act, finding remittal unnecessary and a waste of time where all the material was before the Court (para 23). The Court did not disturb the head sentences or cumulation orders (para 23). However, the Court set aside the earlier non-parole period of 18 years and substituted a new non-parole period of six years, and declared that 1,676 days had already been served by the applicant pursuant to that sentence (paras 26, 38, 41).

Why the court decided this way

Two interconnected questions determined the Court's approach. First, whether it should remit the matter to the original sentencing judge under s.568(5) of the Crimes Act for re-fixing of the non-parole period. Second, whether it could and should itself fix the appropriate non-parole period.

Winneke, P. (for the Court) accepted that s.568(5) provides a mechanism to remit sentencing matters, but emphasised that remittal is not obligatory where the appellate court has before it the same material that was before the sentencing judge and where remittal would be "unnecessary and a waste of time" (para 23). The critical considerations were fairness and whether the appellate court was competent to reach a just result on the material before it. The President explicitly rejected the contention that it would be unfair to the applicant for the Court to fix the minimum, observing that the Court had the necessary material and that there was no realistic prospect of lowering the head sentences (paras 20–23).

Accordingly, the Court concluded that it was appropriate to confine its intervention to the non-parole period: leave to appeal was allowed and the appeal was allowed solely to set aside and substitute the minimum term. The head sentences and cumulation orders were left intact because no error in their imposition had been shown or was apparent (para 23). The substituted non-parole period of six years was fixed on the basis of the sentencing material before the sentencing judge and the submissions made to the Court (para 26).

In short: remittal was declined because the Court had all the sentencing material, remitting would serve no purpose, and the only necessary and appropriate intervention was to replace the existing non-parole period which had lost its basis when the murder conviction was quashed (paras 17, 23, 26, 38).

Before and after state of the law

The decision operates at the interface between two sentencing/appellate practices:

• Remittal under s.568(5) of the Crimes Act: a statutory procedural device which allows an appellate court to remit a matter to the sentencing judge to decide specific issues afresh. Traditionally remittal is used where the sentencing judge has not had an opportunity to consider a particular matter or where factual or discretionary determinations should properly be made by the original sentencing judge.

• Appellate fixing of non-parole periods: this Court treated its power to fix a non-parole period as appropriate in circumstances where the Court had the full sentencing material and where remittal would be pointless or unfair. The ruling clarifies that remittal is not mandatory and that an appellate court may itself fix a minimum term when it possesses the material and no unfairness results.

After this decision, practitioners should understand that where a non-parole period was fixed by reference to a cumulative sentence which later falls away, an appellate court can directly intervene to re-fix the non-parole period rather than remitting, provided the appellate court has before it the necessary material and is satisfied that remittal would be unnecessary or a waste of time (paras 23, 26, 38).

The Court left intact the principle that head sentences and cumulation orders are not to be disturbed unless error is shown. The judgment therefore preserves hierarchical boundaries between correcting miscarriages in minimum terms and relitigating head sentences where no error exists (para 23).

Key passages with plain-English translation

Quoted passages below are taken from the Court's reasons (Winneke, P.) and followed by a plain-English translation and explanation.

• "Leave to apply out of time should be granted because of the peculiar circumstances that have arisen." (para 14)

  • Plain-English: The Court agreed to accept the applicant's late application for leave to appeal because of the unusual situation created by the successful appeal and subsequent nolle prosequi on the murder charge. The Crown did not oppose this.

• "It seems to me, if I may say so, to be both unnecessary and a waste of time to remit the matter to her Honour pursuant to s.568(5)." (para 23)

  • Plain-English: The Court thought it pointless to send the case back to the original sentencer for reconsideration under the remittal provision because this Court had all the information needed and could deal with the minimum term directly.

• "The Court is perfectly able, on the material before it, which is said to be all the material which was before her Honour, to fix an appropriate minimum sentence." (para 23)

  • Plain-English: The appellate judges declared they could fairly and competently set the non-parole period themselves because they had the same documents and submissions the sentencing judge had.

• "I would order, ... that the applicant serve a non-parole period of six years before becoming eligible for parole." (para 26)

  • Plain-English: The President set out the specific non-parole period the Court considered appropriate in place of the earlier 18-year minimum.

• "The non-parole period of 18 years is quashed. In lieu thereof we order that the applicant serve a period of 6 years before becoming eligible for parole." (para 38)

  • Plain-English: The Court's operative order. The prior 18-year non-parole period was set aside and replaced with six years.

• "The Court declares that a period of 1,676 days has already been served by the applicant pursuant to the sentence." (para 41)

  • Plain-English: The Court formally recorded how much custodial time the applicant had already served, which is relevant to parole eligibility under the substituted minimum.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The reasoning and orders in Wenitong will be engaged where the following constellation of facts occurs:

• The sentencing judge fixes a non-parole period by reference to a cumulative or concurrent sentence (or otherwise fixes a minimum whose validity materially depends on another sentence), and subsequently that other sentence is quashed or otherwise removed (paras 11, 17).
• The offender seeks to challenge the non-parole period (and perhaps the head sentences), and the appellate court has before it all material that was before the sentencing judge (para 23).
• There is no error demonstrated in the head sentences or orders of cumulation, such that the only necessary question is the appropriate non-parole period (para 23).
• Remittal would not materially advance the interests of justice because the appellate court can adequately address the minimum term itself (para 23).

In such circumstances Wenitong establishes that the appellate court may properly substitute its own minimum term rather than remitting to the sentencing judge.

How later courts have treated it

This judgment itself does not catalogue later appellate treatment. The reasons articulate the principle that an appellate court possessing the full sentencing material may set aside and substitute a non-parole period where remittal would be unnecessary and wasteful (para 23). That principle is expressed sharply and will be cited as authority in later sentencing appeals where similar procedural circumstances appear. Readers should consult subsequent authorities to see how courts have applied Wenitong to particular fact patterns, including any refinement of what amounts to “all the material” being before the appellate court and what constitutes unfairness that would require remittal.

Absent later judgments in this text, practitioners should note the Court's practical orientation: appellate intervention limited to correcting the minimum term where it has an adequate factual and contextual base, while conserving the sentencing judge's head sentences where no error has been shown (para 23).

Still-open questions

The judgment resolves the immediate problem posed by a quashed cumulative sentence, but leaves several practical and doctrinal questions for further development in subsequent cases:

• What precisely constitutes "all the material" that must be before the appellate court before it can sensibly and fairly fix a minimum term? The Court in Wenitong stated it had all the material before the sentencing judge (para 23), but did not itemise that material. Future cases will need to delineate whether fresh evidence, oral sentencing remarks not in transcript, or other material need to be produced on appeal.

• How should appellate courts approach situations where the sentencing judge might have exercised discretion differently had the cumulative sentence not existed? Wenitong took the position that there was "no basis for disturbing the head sentences" (para 23), but complex cases could require fuller assessment of whether a different head sentence would have been imposed absent the quashed sentence.

• What are the limits of appellate firmness in substituting fixed minimum terms? Wenitong suggests restraint where head sentences are unchallenged (paras 23, 38), but appellate courts will need to calibrate their intervention when sentencing judges' reasoning is scant on the minimum term.

• How should remission under s.568(5) be applied in close cases where procedural fairness to an offender might favour the original sentencer reconsidering the minimum? The Court emphasised remittal is unnecessary and a waste of time in the present case (para 23), but did not define the threshold of unfairness that would make remittal appropriate.

• Administrative consequences and calculation of time-served in complex cumulative/quashed sentence scenarios: Wenitong declared the days served (para 41), but wider questions remain about parole boards' role and how corrected non-parole periods should be applied where other sentences or orders remain extant.

Practitioners dealing with similar facts should treat Wenitong as authorising appellate determination of a non-parole period where the appellate court has the sentencing material and remittal would serve no useful purpose, but should be prepared to address the evidential boundaries and fairness considerations that Wenitong left for future elaboration (para 23).