Brock v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicants, Brock and others, sought this leave following a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute arose from an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions of Victoria, which resulted in sentences that the applicants argued were demonstrably disparate.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in its approach to a Director's appeal concerning sentence. Specifically, the applicants contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal had allowed a "gross disparity" in sentences to arise, contrary to established principles governing such appeals. This raised the question of the proper interpretation of provisions allowing for appeals against sentence by the prosecution, and the circumstances under which a Court of Criminal Appeal should intervene.

The applicants relied on the principles articulated in *Griffiths v The Queen*, particularly the judgment of Sir Garfield Barwick CJ. His Honour's reasoning, which the applicants adopted, emphasised that an appeal by the Attorney-General (or Director of Public Prosecutions) on the ground of inadequacy of sentence should be a rarity. Such an appeal is not satisfied by a mere disagreement with the sentence imposed, but requires a sentence that is indicative of error or a departure from principle. While consistency in sentencing is desirable, the Court of Criminal Appeal should not substitute its own view of the appropriate sentence unless there is a demonstrable error or breach of principle by the sentencing judge. The applicants argued that the decision under appeal represented a departure from these principles, leading to an unacceptable disparity in the sentences imposed.