Graham v R

The applicant in this case, Graham, appealed against the severity of her sentence imposed by the District Court. The primary judge sentenced Graham to a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. Graham argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly because of the notional starting point for the head sentence. The appeal court considered whether the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the applicant’s previous criminal record and the need to focus on the sentence actually passed.

The court addressed the issue of whether the statistics provided by the Judicial Commission could be used to argue that the notional starting point was excessive. The court found that the statistics were of limited use, as they did not provide information about the starting point for the calculations or the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence. Furthermore, the court noted that while statistics can be useful in understanding sentencing patterns, they do not constrain the proper application of sentencing principles. The court emphasised that the major guideposts for sentencing are the maximum sentence, any standard non-parole period, and the general principles of sentencing.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that the notional starting point of 8 years was necessarily excessive. The court found that the objective seriousness of the offence was substantial, with overwhelming aggravating features and little mitigation. The applicant had an extensive criminal history, which, while not relevant to the objective seriousness of the offence, was relevant to the final sentence imposed. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and therefore, there was no basis for altering it. The applicant's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offence warranted a significant custodial sentence, which the primary judge had appropriately determined.