Hankin v The Queen

The appeal concerned a sentencing decision made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The appellant, Hankin, had been found guilty by a jury of committing a dangerous act causing grievous bodily harm. The Crown had not cross-appealed the sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had failed to properly apply the totality principle. Additionally, the appellant sought to argue that the sentencing judge erred in ordering the suspension of the unexpired portion of a previous sentence to commence after the new sentence was served.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentence imposed was excessive. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offending, which involved an unprovoked and violent assault on a tourist while the appellant was heavily intoxicated, the Court considered the appellant's circumstances since his sentencing. The Court noted that the appellant had been a model prisoner, had secured full-time employment, and intended to undertake alcohol and drug counselling. These factors, while not significantly altering the assessment of rehabilitation prospects, suggested a slightly improved outlook. The Court also considered the totality principle in relation to the unexpired portion of a previous sentence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the original sentence and substituted a sentence of five years and six months imprisonment, commencing from 16 October 2008, with a non-parole period of four years. This meant the appellant would be eligible for parole after serving four years, and if not released, would serve a total of six years and 134 days.