Ajax v The Queen

Ajax appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory for offences of arson, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by Martin CJ, Mildren and Thomas JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the original sentence for arson, contrary to sections 188, 239, and 251 of the *Criminal Code* (NT), was demonstrably too severe, thereby justifying appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, including the limited grounds upon which such appeals are allowed and the need to demonstrate that the sentencing judge erred in principle or imposed a sentence that was outside the available range of appropriate sentences. After reviewing the facts and circumstances of the offending, the Court concluded that the original sentence did indeed reflect an error in principle and was manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Court resentenced the appellant.