Edmonds (A Pseudonym) v The Queen

The applicant, referred to as Edmonds (A Pseudonym), sought permission to appeal and appealed against a sentence imposed by a sentencing judge in South Australia. The dispute concerned the applicant's conviction on three counts of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, contrary to section 50(1) of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA). The victims were his three step-granddaughters. The sentencing judge imposed cumulative sentences for each offence, which were then adjusted for totality, and a non-parole period was fixed. The applicant's sole ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the sentencing judge erred by considering the mandatory minimum non-parole period when determining the head sentence, and secondly, whether the overall sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant also contended that the sentencing judge failed to consider the minimum non-parole period prescribed by the *Sentencing Act 2017* (SA) when fixing the head sentence.

The Court held that a sentencing court is mandated by section 11(4)(a) of the *Sentencing Act* to determine the head sentence for an offence without regard to any prescribed mandatory minimum non-parole period. Therefore, the imposition of such a minimum non-parole period was not a valid ground to challenge the head sentences themselves. However, the Court found that the head sentence was nevertheless manifestly excessive. Consequently, the Court granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and resentenced the applicant to a single term of 15 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years, backdated to the original sentencing date.