Green (a pseudonym) v The King

The case of Green (a pseudonym) v The King involved an appeal against a sentence imposed in 2015. The applicant contested the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not adopt the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach when determining the appropriate penalty. The appeal was not opposed, and the court granted an extension of time to appeal. The key issues before the court were the sentencing principles applied and the factors considered in determining the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach in determining the appropriate penalty, and if the relevant factors were adequately considered. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh and did not take into account the objective seriousness of the offence, parity with similar cases, and the hardship to the applicant’s family. Additionally, the applicant submitted that the sentence should have been reduced due to their plea of guilty and cooperation with law enforcement agencies.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately applied the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach, which requires a balanced consideration of all relevant factors in determining a sentence. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offence, the need for parity with similar cases, and the hardship to the applicant’s family. The court also noted the applicant’s plea of guilty and cooperation with law enforcement agencies as mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was excessive and reduced it accordingly. The court further noted that the applicant’s family would suffer significant hardship if the original sentence was upheld. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced.