Landmark v The Queen

In the case of Landmark v The Queen, the applicant was charged as an accessory after the fact to the offence of causing serious injury, following the death of the victim. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The applicant, along with a principal offender, was present at the scene when the deceased was shot, and they subsequently assisted in covering up the crime. The applicant was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and eight months. The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of victim impact statements, whether the sentence imposed was excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had taken into account irrelevant circumstances.

The court considered whether the victim impact statements were admissible, despite the victim being deceased at the time of the offence. The court found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant would receive a lesser sentence if the statements were excluded, and thus, the statements were admissible. The court also found that the sentencing judge did not take into account irrelevant circumstances when determining the sentence, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the applicant's argument that the sentence should be based on the higher maximum penalty applicable to the co-offender was not reasonably arguable. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's consideration of the co-offender's sentence, and that the sentence imposed upon the applicant did not offend the principle of parity.

The court further found that the applicant's arguments regarding the sentencing judge's consideration of the circumstances surrounding the shooting of the deceased were not reasonably arguable. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's approach to sentencing, and that the sentence imposed upon the applicant was not excessive. The court ultimately denied the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The final orders of the court were that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld.