FD v R

The case of FD v R involved the applicant, who was convicted of multiple offences of aggravated indecent assault and sexual intercourse without consent. The victims were two young children, and the applicant was their paternal grandfather. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge made several errors in the sentencing process, including incorrectly stating the standard non-parole period for some of the offences, ascribing an additional discount on account of remorse over and above the discount for the pleas of guilty, and failing to consider the applicant's brain damage as a factor that reduced his moral culpability. The applicant also argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court of appeal examined the sentencing judge's decision and found that there were indeed errors in the process. However, the court concluded that no other sentence was warranted in law.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge's errors warranted a new sentencing hearing, and if not, whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court found that while the sentencing judge had made errors in the process, the sentence imposed was still appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the applicant's brain damage did reduce his moral culpability, but this did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences committed against two young victims over a long period of time. The court also found that the applicant's remorse was properly taken into account in the sentence imposed.

The court of appeal concluded that the sentencing judge's errors did not warrant a new sentencing hearing as the sentence imposed was still appropriate. The court found that the sentence imposed, which comprised a non-parole period of 4 years with a balance of term of 4 years, was not manifestly inadequate. The court noted that the applicant's brain damage did reduce his moral culpability, but this did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences committed. The court also found that the applicant's remorse was properly taken into account in the sentence imposed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.