DPP v Polat (a pseudonym)

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentence imposed on Polat, who had been convicted of four counts of incest and one count of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16. Polat was sentenced to six years imprisonment on each incest charge, with an additional nine months added to each sentence, resulting in an effective total sentence of 9 years and 3 months imprisonment. The non-parole period was set at 6 years. The Crown did not challenge the individual sentences but argued that the orders for cumulation resulted in an inadequate total effective sentence and non-parole period. Polat's offending was characterised by a breach of trust, abuse of parental authority, psychological manipulation, and persistence over a long period, with increased culpability with successive offences.

The court had to determine whether the orders for cumulation resulted in an inadequate total effective sentence and non-parole period. It considered that Polat's offending was objectively serious and involved a breach of trust, abuse of parental authority, and psychological manipulation. The court noted that Polat had been sentenced as a serious sexual offender on two incest charges, and the presumption of cumulation applied. However, the court found that the orders for cumulation did not adequately reflect the separate criminality of the individual offences, as they did not sufficiently account for the increased culpability with successive offences. The court concluded that the orders for cumulation resulted in an inadequate total effective sentence and non-parole period.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders for cumulation were set aside. Polat was re-sentenced to 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years. The court considered that this sentence reflected the seriousness of Polat's offending, the breach of trust, abuse of parental authority, and psychological manipulation. The court also considered that the sentence adequately reflected the increased culpability with successive offences. The court noted that the re-sentence was within the maximum penalties prescribed by the relevant legislation. The final orders reflected the court's determination that the original sentence was inadequate and that the re-sentence was appropriate.