GPR v The Queen

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, GPR, by a sentencing judge for one count of gross indecency and two counts of indecent dealing. The sentencing judge had imposed a total sentence of four years and nine months imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, on the condition that the appellant enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for four years. The appeal was heard by Angel, Mildren, and Southwood JJ.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and outside the range of sentences typically imposed in 1991 for similar offences committed by offenders with comparable antecedents. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, and an extension of time to do so was granted.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that sentencing standards in 1991 were more lenient than current practices for such offences. The Court noted that the maximum penalties were lower at the time, a more therapeutic approach to sentencing was adopted, and less weight was given to general deterrence. The Court considered a sample of sentencing remarks from Supreme Court judges in 1991, which demonstrated consistency in more lenient sentencing. The Court also observed that concerns were expressed by judges regarding prison conditions and the lack of rehabilitation programs for offenders. The Court concluded that the sentencing discretion had been properly exercised by the sentencing judge in accordance with the approach described in *Moon* (2000) 117 A Crim R 497, but that the sentencing standards applicable in 1991 were different and more lenient.

The Court re-sentenced the appellant, taking into account the sentencing standards applicable in 1991.