DPP v Malikovski

The case of DPP v Malikovski was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences including affray, robbery, and causing injury. The respondent was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, which was wholly suspended for 18 months, along with a 12-month community-based order. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, both individually and in its cumulative effect, and that the suspension of the custodial sentence rendered it inadequate.

The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the individual sentences and orders imposed were manifestly inadequate and whether the suspension of the imprisonment term rendered the sentence inadequate. The Crown submitted that the sentencing range was such that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that the appeal raised a question of principle. The court had to consider the principles of totality, parity, delay, and rehabilitation in assessing the adequacy of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court determined that the sentence reflected the totality of the offences committed, appropriately accounted for the delay in bringing the respondent to justice, and was consistent with sentences for similar offences. The court also considered the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation, which were reflected in the imposition of a community-based order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence.