GAS v The Queen

The High Court of Australia heard appeals from the Court of Appeal of Victoria in two matters, *GAS v The Queen* and *SJK v The Queen*. The appeals concerned the sentencing of two young offenders, aged 16 and 15 at the time of the offence, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter following the brutal killing of an elderly woman during a robbery. The central dispute on appeal to the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had erred by permitting the Director of Public Prosecutions to conduct their appeal against the initial sentences in a manner contrary to an alleged "plea agreement" made at first instance.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its handling of the prosecution's appeal against sentence, specifically in relation to a purported "plea agreement". The Court was required to consider the effect of an admission involved in pleading guilty to unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter, particularly in circumstances where the prosecution could not prove which of the two accused was the principal offender. Furthermore, the Court had to determine the respective responsibilities of the prosecution, the accused, and the trial judge concerning such agreements, and whether a trial judge's sentencing responsibilities could be circumscribed by the conduct of counsel. The Court also considered the desirability of reducing "plea agreements" to writing and the discretion of an appellate court to decline intervention in a sentence appeal, even if error is shown.

The High Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that the sentences imposed at first instance were manifestly inadequate. The Court reasoned that while there was an element of artificiality in sentencing each appellant on the basis that they aided and abetted the killer, this was a necessary consequence of the prosecution's decision to charge manslaughter when they could not prove who the principal offender was. However, the Court emphasised that the admissions involved in pleading guilty to unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter, in the context of extremely aggravating circumstances, were significant. The Court also rejected the contention that the decision in *R v Bannon and Calder* supported the leniency of the initial sentences, noting that in that case, both offenders had been sentenced to the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, whereas the principle established was that an aider and abettor should receive a lesser penalty than the principal actor.

In each matter, the appeal was dismissed.