Latham v The Queen

The applicants, Latham and his co-offenders, appealed against their sentences for two counts of stealing by removing fossilised footprints from a natural site. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were excessive or inappropriate. The applicants argued that the concurrent terms of two years' imprisonment were too harsh and that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate. The court was required to determine whether the sentences were manifestly excessive or whether there was an error in the consideration of the principles of sentencing.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the character of the applicants, and the principles of sentencing, including deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the applicants had committed serious offences by removing valuable fossilised footprints from a natural site, which had cultural and scientific significance. The court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the sentences were inappropriate. The court also found that the applicants had not shown that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate, as the offences were serious and the applicants had not demonstrated remorse or rehabilitation. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The court's reasoning was based on the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court held that the sentences imposed were appropriate and did not constitute a manifest excess of power. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate, as the offences were serious and the applicants had not shown remorse or rehabilitation. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.