AJ v R

In the appeal of AJ against R, the respondent was convicted of multiple child sexual offences involving two child victims who were the natural children of the applicant. The court was tasked with determining whether the starting points of the indicative sentences were too close to the maximum penalty and whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal focused on the aggregate term on the basis that the indicative sentences were erroneously imposed.

The court examined whether the starting points of the indicative sentences were appropriately determined, considering they were only two months short of the maximum penalty for two counts. It also assessed whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive, given the applicant's objective and subjective circumstances. The appeal argued that the starting points were inappropriate, given the applicant’s case, and this error influenced the aggregate term imposed. The court found that there was indeed an error in the imposition of the indicative sentences that had a bearing on the aggregate term.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed at first instance was set aside. The court found that the error in the imposition of the indicative sentences had influenced the aggregate term. As a result, the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive and needed to be resentenced. The appeal was successful in establishing that the aggregate term should be reconsidered in light of the errors identified.