Cardamone v The Queen

In the case of Cardamone v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of murder, incitement to murder, breach of parole condition, and other related charges. The appellant appealed against his sentence of life imprisonment without parole, arguing that the sentencing judge had erred in not setting a minimum term for his imprisonment. Additionally, he contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge had failed to consider mitigating factors. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the appeal should be allowed.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in not setting a minimum term for the appellant’s imprisonment, and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge had failed to take into account mitigating factors that warranted a shorter minimum term. The court was required to examine the Verdins principles to determine if they applied to this case and assess the appellant’s lack of remorse, his elaborate attempts to conceal his offending and avoid responsibility, and his previous conviction for rape.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in failing to set a minimum term for the appellant's imprisonment, as the Verdins considerations did not apply in this case. The court held that there were no mitigating factors present that would warrant a shorter minimum term. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the appellant’s lack of remorse, elaborate attempts to conceal his offending and avoid responsibility, and previous conviction for rape were relevant considerations in determining the appropriate sentence. The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.