BM v R

In this case, the applicant, BM, appeals against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court. The applicant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault. The offences occurred when the applicant was aged between 13 and 15 years old. The court was required to decide whether the sentencing judge failed to properly assess the objective seriousness of the offences and whether the applicant's mental disorder, which was found to be causative of the offending, was adequately considered.

The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences and the impact of the applicant's age and mental disorder. It was noted that the sentencing judge did not fully consider the objective seriousness of the offences. The court also found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the impact of the applicant's mental disorder on the offending. The court concluded that the sentencing judge failed to properly assess the objective seriousness of the offences and the impact of the applicant's mental disorder.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the applicant was re-sentenced. The court noted that the applicant's age and mental disorder were significant mitigating factors. However, the court also emphasised the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.

The court's decision highlights the importance of properly assessing the objective seriousness of offences and the impact of any mitigating factors, such as age and mental disorder, in sentencing young offenders. It also emphasises the need for sentencing judges to consider the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community in imposing appropriate sentences.