Jacques v The Director of Public Prosecutions

Steven Joseph Jacques applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The Director of Public Prosecutions was the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in determining whether a sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in its methodology, particularly in its reliance on a "signposts approach" and in its assessment of the non-parole period.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the "signposts approach" to assess manifest inadequacy of a sentence, and whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly determined the non-parole period by reference to an "a priori" range rather than by applying sentencing principles. A further issue was whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the residual discretion to dismiss a prosecution appeal.

The applicant contended that the Court of Appeal's "signposts approach," which involved accumulating disagreements with the primary judge's discretionary judgments without finding specific errors of principle, did not demonstrate manifest inadequacy. Instead, it was argued that this method effectively allowed the appellate court to substitute its own discretionary judgments for those of the trial judge, contrary to established principles. Regarding the non-parole period, the applicant argued that the Court of Appeal erred by fixing it by reference to a recognised range (50-75% of the head sentence) rather than by applying sentencing principles to the facts, which was said to be contrary to decisions such as *Hili v The Queen*. Finally, the applicant submitted that the Court of Appeal failed to address its residual discretion to dismiss the prosecution appeal, despite this being raised in submissions.