Hoare v The Queen; Easton v The Queen

The High Court of Australia heard applications for special leave to appeal in the matters of *Hoare v The Queen* and *Easton v The Queen*. Both applications concerned the sentencing of the applicants, with the same legal arguments being presented in relation to the sentence in both cases. The respondent in both matters was the State of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was the proper application of section 302 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act* in determining the appropriate sentence for the offences committed by the applicants. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the increase in the standard tariff for such offences, from eight years to twelve years, as justified by section 302, was correctly applied by the lower courts. The applicants argued that the sentences imposed were excessive and that the justification for the increased tariff was solely based on this section.

The Court's reasoning focused on how section 302 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act* impacted sentencing tariffs. It was noted that the leading judgment in *Hoare's* case, by Mr Justice Perry, relied on his previous decision in *King's* case. In *King's* case, the increase in the tariff from eight to twelve years for offences of this nature was justified by reference to section 302. This section was also identified as the basis for the decision in *Easton's* case, where the Solicitor-General had argued for the tariff increase, and the court had acceded to that proposition. Therefore, the Court acknowledged that by the time *Hoare's* and *King's* cases were heard, the tariff for these offences had risen by 50 per cent solely due to the operation of section 302.