Alexander v The Queen

The appellant, Alexander, appealed against his sentence for various criminal offences, arguing that the total effective sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight was given to certain sentencing considerations. The charges against Alexander included criminal damage, aggravated burglary, and intentionally causing injury, for which he received sentences of three months, two years and six months, and twelve months respectively. The total effective sentence was three years, with a non-parole period of eighteen months. Alexander contested the appropriateness of the sentences, arguing that the individual sentences on aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury were excessive and that the cumulative sentence was also disproportionate. He further argued that the aggravated burglary was not a serious example of the offence and that insufficient weight was given to certain sentencing considerations, including the application of R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.

The court was required to determine whether the individual sentences, the total effective sentence, the non-parole period and/or the cumulation were manifestly excessive. The court also had to consider whether the aggravated burglary was a serious example of the offence and whether sufficient weight was given to certain sentencing considerations, including the application of R v Verdins. In assessing these issues, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing set out in relevant legislation and case law.

The court found that the sentences imposed on Alexander were not manifestly excessive and that the cumulative sentence was appropriate. The court held that the aggravated burglary was a serious example of the offence and that sufficient weight was given to the relevant sentencing considerations, including the application of R v Verdins. The court also considered the need to deter Alexander and others from engaging in similar criminal conduct. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

No orders were made as the application for leave to appeal was refused.