Ashton v The Queen

In Ashton v The Queen, the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted armed robbery, recklessly causing serious injury and intentionally destroying property, appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant, a young offender suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in sentencing by relying on a disputed fact adverse to the appellant, without requiring the Crown to call the victims to substantiate the facts and be cross-examined by the appellant's counsel. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the judge gave inadequate weight to the appellant's youth and reduced moral culpability due to his serious psychiatric condition.

The court found that the trial judge erred in basing the sentence on a disputed fact without requiring the Crown to substantiate it. The judge did not call the victims to testify and allow for cross-examination by the appellant's counsel. This error was compounded by the judge giving inadequate weight to the appellant's youth and the impact of his serious psychiatric condition on his moral culpability. These errors led to excessive sentences. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and two months.

In light of the errors identified, the court re-evaluated the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account his age, psychiatric condition, and the nature of the offences. The court recognised the need to balance the seriousness of the crimes with the appellant's diminished capacity and youth. The final orders of the court reflect a re-sentence that appropriately considers these factors, resulting in a more lenient penalty than the original sentence imposed by the trial judge.