Liddy v R

Christopher Liddy appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory against a sentence of imprisonment for five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months, imposed for three assaults committed against his de facto wife in 2003. The sole ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in her exercise of discretion by imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offences, the appellant's guilty plea, and his criminal history. Specifically, the court had to determine if the sentence reflected an error in principle or a misassessment of salient features of the evidence, and whether the appellant had demonstrated that the sentence was clearly and obviously, rather than merely arguably, excessive.

The Court reasoned that the assaults were serious, particularly the final assault which involved a deliberate breach of a domestic violence order and resulted in grievous bodily harm to the victim. The court noted the appellant's history of violence and his stated intention to use violence to control the victim, which indicated a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law. The court applied the principles from *Veen v R (No 2)* regarding the relevance of antecedent criminal history to demonstrate a continuing attitude of disobedience, retribution, deterrence, and protection of society. While acknowledging the appellant's early plea of guilty, the court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered it and that the sentence imposed, particularly for the most serious offence, was towards the top of the available range but within the proper exercise of discretion given the circumstances of the offending and the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.