Site Logo

James (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] SASCA 82

The offender was sentenced following conviction for 4 counts of using a carriage service to menage, harass or cause offence contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Original sentence imposed 18 months imprisonment, to be released immediately upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for 5 years with 2 of these years under the supervision of a probation officer. Offender sought to appeal on grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive, the sentencing judge sentenced on an inconsistent factual basis and that the sentencing judge erred in failing to bring the offender’s attention to his intention to sentence on an inconsistent factual basis.

Manifest Excess: Sentencing judge found that the offender’s offending was a serious example of this kind of offending. Offending involved a relatively high level of sophistication in the manipulation of social media platforms. Nonetheless, sentencing judge explicitly paid careful regard to the offender’s personal circumstances, accepting there was a link between their disability and offending. In circumstances where the maximum penalty for each of the charges was 3 years imprisonment, it cannot be said that the prison sentence of 18 months was manifestly excessive. This is particularly so when one has regard to the sentence as a whole and the concomitant decision to order immediately release, together with a lengthy recognizance with a close degree of supervision.

Leave to appeal refused.
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2023 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions