Bavage v The Queen

The case of Bavage v The Queen involved an appeal by the applicant, who had been convicted of multiple sexual offences against five female victims over a period of almost 30 years. The applicant was originally sentenced to a total effective sentence of 27 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had been led into error by the prosecutor, who suggested that the trial judge could 'step outside' current sentencing practices. The Crown conceded that the prosecutor had indeed led the trial judge into error.

The court considered the extent to which the prosecutor’s comments influenced the original sentence. It was established that the prosecutor's suggestion that the trial judge could deviate from established sentencing principles improperly directed the judge in determining the appropriate sentence. Given this error, the court re-evaluated the sentence, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences, the number of victims, and the principles of sentencing. The court concluded that the original sentence was too severe and re-sentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. The court found no point of principle that required further examination.

The High Court's final order was that the applicant's sentence was to be reduced to a total effective sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to established sentencing practices and the potential impact of prosecutorial error on the sentencing process.