Farrugia v The Queen

In the case of Farrugia v The Queen, the applicant was convicted of multiple offences, including blackmail, armed robbery, robbery, and handling stolen goods, all involving the same victim. The applicant appealed against the severity of his sentence and the cumulative nature of some of the charges. The court was required to determine whether the applicant should be subjected to double punishment for two counts of blackmail relating to similar threats sent on the same day, as well as whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and if the offending of the applicant's sons should be considered in his sentencing.

The court considered the principle of order cumulation as discussed in Pearce v The Queen, concluding that the two counts of blackmail could indeed be ordered to cumulate. This meant that the applicant would be punished for both counts, despite the similarity of the threats. The court also examined the broad principle of equal justice, taking into account the applicant's sons' similar type of offending against the same victim. However, the court found that the sentencing principle of equal justice was not directly applicable to this case, as the applicant's sons' offending was not relevant to the applicant's sentence.

The court determined that the sentence of four years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the applicant's offending and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes committed. Ultimately, the applicant's appeal against his sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's appeal against sentence be dismissed, and the original sentence of four years' imprisonment remain in place. The court also confirmed that the two counts of blackmail could cumulate, and that the broad principle of equal justice was not applicable to the applicant's case in this instance.