Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
In this matter Applegarth J was required to sentence a person for contempt of the Crime and Misconduct Commission arising from the attendee’s refusal to take an oath and answer questions at a CMC hearing. In considering an appropriate period of incarceration for the contempt his Honour took into account those relevant factors which were referred to by Dunford J in Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183 at 185. His Honour identified the contempt as being a serious one as it involved the Commission’s investigation into the persons and entities involved in the operation of a Criminal Motorcycle Gang. His Honour reached a provisional view that in normal circumstances a sentence of six months imprisonment would be appropriate. However, his Honour considered the impact on the sentencing discretion of the fact that Attendee Z would be held in solitary confinement for about 22 hours a day. His Honour discussed the authorities which consider the appropriateness of reducing sentences when the person being sentenced has or will be subject to more onerous than usual conditions in their confinement. His Honour also identified and considered the known detrimental effects arising from the imposition of the punishment of solitary confinement. After taking such matters into consideration his Honour considered that it was appropriate to reduce the sentence to a term of six weeks.
Similar reasons were delivered by his Honour in the matters of Callanan v Attendee Xand Callanan v Attendee Y .