DS v R; DM v R

The case of DS v R; DM v R involved two juvenile offenders, DS and DM, who were convicted of serious offences including murder and robbery. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which granted leave to appeal against their sentences. The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences and the moral culpability of the offenders. The court also had to consider whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had erred in considering the youth of the offenders.
The High Court found that the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of DS’s offences, as they had addressed DS’s participation in DM’s offences rather than DS’s own offences. The court also found that the sentencing judge had failed to give effect to their finding of special circumstances, which should have reduced the moral culpability of the offenders. However, the court found no error in the sentencing judge’s consideration of the youth of the offenders or their description of the murder as involving “gratuitous violence” and being “cold blooded”. The court held that the sentences imposed were well in excess of the objective seriousness of each offence and that there was a need for parity between the sentences. The appeal was allowed, and the applicants were resentenced.

The final orders of the court were that the sentences imposed on DS and DM be quashed and that they be resentenced. The court also noted that in resentencing, the sentencing judge should take into account the special circumstances of the case, including the dysfunctional backgrounds and mental health issues of the offenders. The decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each offender when imposing a sentence and the need for parity between co-offenders.