Laipato v The Queen

Laipato appealed against his conviction and sentence for a number of offences. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Robinson and Berman AJJ in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The grounds of appeal included that the verdicts were unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that there was an issue with "bad character evidence" which was not objected to at trial. The appeal also concerned the sentence imposed, alleging error in factual findings regarding objective seriousness and manifest excess.

The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were so unreasonable, unsafe, or unsatisfactory as to warrant intervention. It also had to consider whether the admission of "bad character evidence," despite the defence's failure to object at trial, rendered the verdicts unsafe. Furthermore, the court was tasked with assessing whether the sentencing judge made errors in factual findings concerning the objective seriousness of the offences, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the verdicts were not unreasonable, unsafe, or unsatisfactory. The failure to object to the "bad character evidence" at trial was considered in the context of the overall trial. However, the appeal against sentence was upheld. The court found that there were errors in the factual findings regarding the objective seriousness of the offences, which resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. Consequently, the appellant was resentenced.