Adkins v The King

In the matter of Adkins v The King, the applicant, Adkins, was convicted of six counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years of age. Adkins appealed against his sentence, which had been imposed following his conviction. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Adkins' initial sentence comprised a total effective period of imprisonment of 2 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months. However, the trial judge identified an error in the initial sentencing remarks regarding the complainant's age at the time of the offending. Upon discovering this error, the trial judge resentenced Adkins, applying a '6 month reduction' to the sentence originally fixed. This led to questions regarding whether the trial judge had adopted a 'two stage' approach to sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied a 'two stage' approach to sentencing. This approach involves first determining the appropriate sentence for the offence, and then adjusting that sentence based on any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The Court considered whether the trial judge had properly applied this approach when reducing the sentence by 6 months after discovering the factual error. The Court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. In assessing these issues, the Court referred to previous cases such as Wong v The Queen and Markarian v The Queen.

The Court found that the trial judge had adopted a 'two stage' approach to sentencing and had not erred in reducing the sentence by 6 months. However, the Court determined that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence. The Court allowed the appeal, resentenced Adkins to a total effective sentence of 2 years and 2 months' imprisonment, and set a non-parole period of 12 months. This decision highlights the importance of correctly applying a 'two stage' approach to sentencing and the need to ensure sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the offending.