Ellis v The Queen

The applicant, Ellis, appealed against a sentence imposed by a sentencing court after pleading guilty to aggravated assault and indecent assault. The aggravated assault occurred in a context of domestic violence, in breach of an intervention order, and was witnessed by a child. The indecent assault involved a serious and sustained attack on SG, which led to her removal from foster care. Ellis was sentenced as a "serious repeat offender" to three years, nine months, and 11 days imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and nine days.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing court erred in principle or made an arguable error in imposing the sentence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Specifically, the Court considered whether the sentencing court was unduly influenced by statutory limitations on suspension and home detention, and the mandatory minimum non-parole period, when determining the appropriate sentence.

The Court held that it is contrary to principle to impose a lesser sentence than warranted by the circumstances of the offending and the offender simply because statutory provisions preclude suspension and home detention, or mandate a minimum non-parole period. Sentencing courts are obliged to impose an appropriate sentence, taking into account all relevant sentencing considerations as prescribed by the *Sentencing Act 2017* (SA) and common law principles. The Court found that the appeal raised no issue of principle or arguable error, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, falling within the permissible range. Permission to appeal was refused.