Fisher v The Queen

The appeal concerned the sentencing of the appellant, Fisher, by the District Court of Western Australia. The dispute arose from the sentencing judge's approach to imposing a cumulative sentence for offences committed in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia heard the appeal.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in her application of the totality principle and concurrency, and whether sufficient weight was given to the appellant's rehabilitation efforts and the delay between the imposition of sentences in the two jurisdictions. The Court was required to determine if the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and if a re-sentencing was necessary to achieve a just outcome.

The Full Court held that the sentencing judge had fallen into error by not adequately applying the totality principle, which should have been a significant consideration in determining the appropriate total sentence. The Court emphasised that the total sentence should have been determined in accordance with the principles established in *Mill*, taking into account the delay between the two sets of proceedings and the substantial progress made by the appellant in his rehabilitation. The Court noted that the offending in both jurisdictions was similar, involved a single course of criminal conduct over a period, and that the appellant had made extensive efforts towards rehabilitation since his admission of the offences. The Court found that the total sentence of 10 years and two months was not manifestly excessive, but that the sentencing judge had failed to give adequate weight to the appellant's rehabilitation progress during the substantial delay.

The appeal was allowed, and the Full Court re-sentenced the appellant. While the individual sentences were not challenged, the Court devised an appropriate total sentence, considering the unusual circumstances and the need to achieve a just outcome.