Black v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

The appellant, Mr Black, appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing court had failed to consider his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The State of Western Australia responded to the appeal, contending that the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing court had failed to take into account a relevant mitigating factor, specifically the appellant's ADHD, in determining his sentence. The court had to decide whether this oversight constituted a manifest excess that warranted a review of the sentence. The court also had to consider the principle of totality, which requires that the aggregate of all sentences imposed on a defendant for multiple offences should not be excessive.

The court found that the sentencing judge had failed to take into account the appellant's ADHD, which was a significant mitigating factor. The court held that this oversight was not merely an error but a substantial failing that affected the fairness of the sentencing process. The court emphasised that ADHD is a recognised condition that can impact an individual's behaviour and decision-making, and it should have been considered in the sentencing process. The court also considered the principle of totality and found that the aggregate sentence was excessive, taking into account the appellant's ADHD. The court concluded that the sentence was a manifest excess and remitted the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the sentence be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing, taking into account the appellant's ADHD and the principle of totality.