DPP v White

The matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v White was heard by the High Court of Australia. The respondent, White, had pleaded guilty to manslaughter following an unlawful and dangerous act that resulted in the death of the victim, who was shot twice in the chest. After concealing the body, White went free for 17 years before being apprehended. The respondent was sentenced to a term of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence as manifestly inadequate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the test for manifest inadequacy had been reformulated by recent case law. Specifically, the court had to consider the significance of the post-offence conduct and whether it provided a basis for the exercise of the court's residual discretion. The court also had to assess the impact of the decision in HT v The Queen (2019) 93 ALJR 1307 on the test for manifest inadequacy.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It noted that the post-offence conduct was a significant aggravating feature and provided no basis for the exercise of residual discretion. The court applied the test for manifest inadequacy as outlined in DPP v Karazisis (2010) 31 VR 634, and found that the sentence did not accord with the community’s standards of punishment. The court also confirmed that the test for manifest inadequacy remained unchanged following the decision in HT v The Queen. The appeal was allowed, and White was resentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.

The court ordered that the respondent be resentenced to 9 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years. This decision reaffirmed the unchanged nature of the test for manifest inadequacy and highlighted the importance of post-offence conduct in determining the appropriate sentence.