KB v The King; HB v The King; LB v The King

The appellants, KB, HB, and LB, appealed against their sentences imposed by the District Court. The appeals concerned the adequacy of the discounts applied to their sentences following guilty pleas. While a five per cent discount was accepted for a false imprisonment offence, each appellant argued that the five per cent discount for a "negotiated offence" was insufficient, and KB and LB further contended that the sentencing judge failed to adequately explain the reasons for departing from the maximum applicable discount.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was the proper application of section 40 of the *Sentencing Act 2017* (SA), which governs reductions in sentences for guilty pleas. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in law by applying discounts that were too low, considering the stage at which the pleas were entered and the circumstances surrounding the negotiations with the prosecution. The court was also required to consider the factors outlined in section 40(5) of the Act, which a court must have regard to when determining the appropriate percentage reduction for a guilty plea.

The Full Court reasoned that section 40(3) of the *Sentencing Act 2017* (SA) sets out the maximum discounts available depending on the timing of the guilty plea. Section 40(5) then provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered when determining the actual discount. The court noted that while a five per cent discount was permissible under section 40(3)(d) for pleas entered after committal but before arraignment, or under section 40(3)(e) for pleas entered after the first arraignment date, the sentencing judge must still consider the factors in section 40(5). These factors include the stage of proceedings when the intention to plead guilty was indicated, whether negotiations occurred with the prosecution, the strength of the prosecution's case, and the presence of remorse. The court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately explained why the maximum discount was not applied, particularly in light of the circumstances of the negotiated pleas.

The Full Court allowed the appeals, quashed the sentences, and remitted the matters to the District Court for resentencing.