← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case uncategorised

Barbaro v The Queen

(2014) 253 CLR 58
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2014
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Prosecution is not permitted to make submissions on the appropriate sentencing range; the sentencing judge alone determines the appropriate sentence.

Key Principle

The HCA held that prosecution submissions as to the appropriate sentencing range are not permitted; it is for the judge alone to determine the appropriate sentence having regard to all relevant factors.

Area of Law

criminal

Related Cases

Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123

Appellate court must itself assess whether jury verdict was unreasonable where unchallenged opportunity evidence raised reasonable doubt as to guilt.

Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (2020) 272 CLR 177

Search warrant executed at journalist's home held invalid for technical defects; High Court considered scope of implied freedom of political communication but declined to quash the warrant on that basis.

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57

The High Court considered the Browne v Dunn rule and the appropriate jury directions when a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a matter it intends to contradict.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Barbaro v The Queen and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Barbaro v The Queen