DB v R

The applicant, DB, was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria for a series of sexual offences. DB appealed the sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge did not make a finding of special circumstances and that the non-parole period was greater than the statutory ratio. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate or excessive, and whether the sentence should be varied.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate or excessive, and whether the sentence should be varied. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge made an error in failing to find special circumstances and whether the non-parole period was greater than the statutory ratio. The court acknowledged the tension in the authorities regarding whether an error in sentencing is arithmetical or discrete and whether it requires a full re-sentencing or not.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not make a finding of special circumstances, and the non-parole period was greater than the statutory ratio. The court held that the error was not an arithmetical error, but a discrete one, which required full re-sentencing. The court further held that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate, and it was unfair to the applicant. The court varied the sentence to reflect the correct approach to sentencing, and the applicant was resentenced with a non-parole period that aligned with the statutory ratio. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentencing is fair and just and that the sentencing judge considers all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence.