Easton v The Queen

The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal in the matter of *Easton v The Queen*. The applicant, Easton, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. The Crown had appealed against the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge on Easton for four offences of armed robbery.

The central legal issues before the High Court concerned the adequacy of the sentences imposed and whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to direct that some or all of the sentences be served cumulatively. The Crown argued that the head sentence and non-parole period were manifestly inadequate, failing to reflect the totality of Easton's criminal conduct.

The High Court was required to consider the sentencing judge's remarks, which indicated an intention to impose concurrent sentences while acknowledging the need for the duration of sentences to reflect the totality of criminality, referencing *R v Knowles*. The sentencing judge also noted that the toy pistol used meant no person was in actual danger, but that staff would have suffered anxiety. The judge further observed that if the decision in *R v Rossi*, which involved a shotgun being discharged, had been delivered prior to his sentencing, he might have imposed longer terms. The Court of Criminal Appeal's approach to the Crown's appeal, particularly its consideration of the timing of the offences in relation to amendments to section 302 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, was also a key element.