Ale v The King

In the case of Ale v The King, the applicant, Ale, appealed against his sentence, which comprised a total effective sentence of 18 years and a non-parole period of 13 years and 9 months. The applicant was convicted of multiple charges, including drug trafficking, conspiracy to commit arson, conspiracy to recklessly cause injury, and possessing an unregistered handgun. Ale sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against his sentence on various grounds, including an error by the trial judge in misapprehending the maximum penalty for one of the offences, and the sentence being manifestly excessive. Ale also contended that the trial judge failed to find his moral culpability reduced by reason of his disadvantaged background, and argued that fresh evidence, in the form of a delay in receiving medical treatment while in custody, should lead to a reopening of the sentencing discretion.

The court considered whether the trial judge misapprehended the maximum penalty for the offence of conspiracy to recklessly cause injury, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the trial judge failed to take into account Ale's disadvantaged background, and whether the fresh evidence warranted a reopening of the sentencing discretion. The court found that the trial judge had misapprehended the maximum penalty for one of the offences, but held that this did not establish a miscarriage of sentencing discretion. Regarding the sentence's excessiveness, the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the court would impose a shorter period of cumulation or reduce the total effective sentence or non-parole period. The court further determined that the trial judge had considered Ale's moral culpability and was open to concluding that it was not reduced, and that the fresh evidence did not shed significant new light on the facts and was inadmissible.

The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the leave to appeal was refused. The court found that the error in misapprehending the maximum penalty did not establish a miscarriage of sentencing discretion, and there was no reasonable prospect of a reduction in the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately considered Ale's moral culpability and disadvantaged background, and that the fresh evidence did not warrant a reopening of the sentencing discretion. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.