DPP v Bales

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought an appeal against the sentence of a defendant, who had been convicted of 34 historical sex offences against children. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The Director argued that the sentence of 18 months for the base offence was manifestly inadequate and that the total effective sentence of six years with a non-parole period of three years was also inadequate. The Director contended that the sentencing orders for cumulation were inadequate, resulting in an overall sentence that was manifestly inadequate.

The court considered whether the base sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the significant delay between the offences and the sentencing, and the defendant's lack of remorse. The court also considered the principle of totality, as set out in the Sentencing Act 1991, and whether the non-parole period was manifestly inadequate. The Director argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The court found that the base sentence was manifestly inadequate, and that the total effective sentence and non-parole period were also inadequate. The court held that the delay between the offences and sentencing did not mitigate the seriousness of the offences, and that the principle of totality required a sentence that reflected the cumulative seriousness of the offences. The court also found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the need for general deterrence. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing.