DPP v BAB

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions appealing against the sentence imposed on the respondent, BAB, who had been convicted of multiple serious sexual offences, including rape and incest, and malicious wounding. The victims were aged between 11 and 15 years old at the time of the offences, which occurred between 1977 and 1981. The respondent was sentenced as a serious sexual offender for all but three counts. The appeal focused on the adequacy of the sentence, both in terms of the individual sentences and the cumulation of the sentences, to reflect the gravity of the offending and the number of offences against two victims over a lengthy period.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was inadequate in reflecting the gravity of the respondent's criminal conduct, particularly given the number of offences and the age of the victims. The Crown argued that the sentences for individual counts were inadequate and the cumulation of the sentences failed to adequately reflect the numerous offences against two victims over a lengthy period. The Court needed to consider whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the principle of double jeopardy applied to prevent the respondent being sentenced twice for the same conduct.

The Court found that the sentence imposed was inadequate in several respects. It concluded that the individual sentences were insufficient to reflect the gravity of the offending. The cumulation of the sentences also failed to adequately reflect the numerous offences against two victims over a lengthy period. The Court found that the principle of double jeopardy did not prevent the respondent being sentenced for all of the offences. Consequently, the Court increased the sentence of eight years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four-and-a-half years to a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years, pursuant to section 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991.