Too Much Individualisation,Not Enough Justice

The meanings of ‘Aboriginality’ are highly contested. See, eg, Ardill Allan , ‘Non-Indigenous Lawyers Writing about Indigenous People’ (2012) 37(2) Alternative Law Journal 107.

[2013] HCA 27 (2 October 2013).

See Bellear Sol , Why I won't celebrate the William Bugmy decision, 10 October 2013 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-10/bellear-aboriginal-disadvantage-and-the-law/5011950>.

[2013] HCA 27 at [24].

[2013] HCA 27 at [36] and [41]. The orthodoxy regarding the value of individualised justice in relation to equal justice was articulated in Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 at [77]–[78]. (‘Sentences must be reasonably consistent. But it does not follow that disparities between them may not exist. Within the boundaries of reason … where marked disparity renders sentences vulnerable on appeal, it cannot be said that any particular disparate sentence is necessarily wrong merely because it is disparate. … [I]n exercising its discretionary judgment, the primary duty of a sentencing court is to be true to its own perception of what degree of severity or leniency is appropriate.’)

Cunneen Chris , ‘Time to arrest rising Aboriginal prison rates’ (2013) Insight 8: Crime and Justice (VCOSS) 22, 22.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Doing Time – Time for Doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system (2011) 2.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ‘How Australia Compares’ and ‘Indigenous Life Expectancy’ (2013) <http://www.aihw.gov.au/life-expectancy/>.

(1992) 76 A Crim R.

House v The King [1936] HCA 40.

[2013] HCA 27 at [25].

See Krasnostein Sarah Freiberg Arie , ‘Manifest Error: Grounds for Review?’ (2012) 36(1) Australian Bar Review 54.

[2013] HCA 27 at [42].

[2013] HCA 27 at [28].

See von Hirsch Andrew Ashworth Andrew , Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles (Oxford University Press, 2005) 1–10.

[1982] HCA 55 at [18].

See R v Ipeelee [2012] 1 SCR 433 (Supreme Court of Canada).

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCATrans 167 (6 August 2013) (Ms D Yehia, SC).

R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688 and R v Ipeelee [2012] 1 SCR 433

[2013] HCA 27 at [36].

[2013] HCA 27 at [36].

[2013] HCA 27 at [37].

[2013] HCA 27 at [41].

[2013] HCA 27 at [39]; Neal v R [1982] HCA 55 at [13].

[2013] HCA 27 at [43].

[2013] HCA 27 at [42].

[2013] HCA 27 at [44].

[2013] HCA 27 at [41].

R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688 at [66].

R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688 at [93], see also [48]. See also Anthony Thalia , ‘Indigenising Sentencing? Bugmy v The Queen’ (2013) Sydney Law Review 451, 466.

R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688 at [33].

DPP v Arney [2007] VSCA 126 at [14]; Russell v The Queen [2011] VSCA 147 at [57]; Kane v R [2010] VSCA 213 at [25]; R v Bangard [2005] VSCA 313 at [11]. See Krasnostein Sarah Freiberg Arie , ‘Pursuing Consistency in an Individualistic Sentencing Framework: If You Know Where You're Going, How Do You Know When You've Got There?’ (2013) 76 Law and Contemporary Problems 265.

See, eg, Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29 at [15]; Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 at [27]; Wong [2001] HCA 64 at [6]; R v MacNeil-Brown; R v Piggott [2008] VSCA 190 at [10]; Whyte [2002] NSWCCA at [147]; Russell v The Queen [2011] VSCA 147 at [57]–[58].

[2013] HCA 27 at [24].

[2013] HCA 27 at [41].

R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688 at [33]; R v Ipeelee [2012] 1 SCR 433 at [83].

My thanks to one of my anonymous reviewers for making this point.

Leeth [1992] HCA 29 at [8] per Deane and Toohey JJ.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Imprisonment Rates’, 45170 – Prisoners in Australia, 2012.