Kember v The Queen

The case of Kember v The Queen involved the appellant, Kember, who appealed against his sentence for firearms offences. Kember had been found guilty of knowingly participating in the supply of a pistol to a person not authorised to possess such a firearm, as well as possessing a prohibited weapon. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Kember argued that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) as an alternative to full-time custody and that the judge had not applied the principles of parity in sentencing when comparing his sentence to that of his co-offenders.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to consider an ICO as an alternative to full-time custody and whether the judge had properly applied the principles of parity in sentencing. The court examined the three-step process for considering an ICO, which involves assessing whether the order is suitable for the offender, whether it is appropriate for the offence, and whether it is suitable for the community. The court found that the sentencing judge had followed this process and had considered all relevant matters in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also found that the sentencing judge had properly taken into account the different degrees of criminality of the appellant and his co-offenders, and had not failed to apply the principles of parity in sentencing. The court concluded that there was no justifiable sense of grievance arising from the sentences imposed upon the co-offenders and that there was no need to consider whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had not erred in considering the appropriate sentence for the appellant. The court held that the sentencing judge had taken into account all relevant matters and had properly applied the principles of sentencing, including the three-step process for considering an ICO. The court found that there was no need to consider the manifest excess of the sentences imposed upon the co-offenders, as there was no justifiable sense of grievance arising from those sentences. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence stood.