Aitkin v the Queen

In the case of Aitkin v the Queen, the appellant was convicted of blackmail and breaching a personal safety intervention order. The appellant was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for the blackmail charge and 6 months’ imprisonment for the breach of the intervention order. The total effective sentence was 5 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentencing discretion miscarried due to the judge's reliance on matters external to the charged conduct and that the sentence for the blackmail charge was manifestly excessive.

The court had to determine whether the judge misapplied the sentencing discretion by considering external factors not relevant to the blackmail charge and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court also needed to consider whether the overall sentence was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the crimes and the appellant's criminal history. The central issue was whether the total sentence imposed was commensurate with the crimes and the appellant's culpability.

The court found that the judge had indeed misapplied the sentencing discretion by considering external factors. The court concluded that the sentence for the blackmail charge was manifestly excessive. The court resentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months. This decision was based on the principle that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offences and the appellant's culpability without undue influence from external factors. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and commensurate with the crimes committed.