Director of Public Prosecutions v Gorgulu

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Gorgulu, the respondent was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to a victim by setting them alight. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was adequate and to consider whether the trial judge correctly identified an aggravating factor related to the nature of the relationship between the respondent and the victim. The Court of Appeal was called upon to review the decision made by the trial judge and to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge correctly identified an aggravating feature of the offence in the relationship between the respondent and the victim, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court considered whether the relationship between the respondent and the victim could be classified as an intimate relationship for the purposes of an aggravating feature, and if the sentence was sufficient given the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the respondent.

The court found that the trial judge's identification of the relationship as an aggravating factor was incorrect as the concept of an intimate relationship does not extend to close friendships. The court held that extending the category of trust to include close friendships would risk diluting the significance attached to other clearly established relationships. The court also found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. Given the objective gravity of the offending and the high moral culpability of the respondent, the court determined that a very substantial period of imprisonment was required. After considering comparable cases, the court found that the sentence should be towards the upper end of the range of seriousness for this offence.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.