Madden v R

The case of Madden v R involved the applicant, who pleaded guilty to committing a serious indictable offence of stealing while being in the company of others, which constituted an aggravated break and enter. The court of appeal considered an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, who was already serving a sentence for other offences committed in the intervening period between the original offence and his arrest. The legal issues before the court included whether the delay in sentencing and the principle of totality had been properly considered and whether the sentences could have been imposed concurrently had they been dealt with together. The applicant argued that the delay in sentencing should have been taken into account, and that the principle of totality should have been applied to ensure that the sentences did not overlap unnecessarily.

The court found that there was no evidence before the sentencing judge regarding the other offences, and that it was not the role of the sentencing judge to make independent inquiries into other matters not before them. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the approach taken by the sentencing judge, particularly in relation to the standard non-parole period. The court noted that the sentencing judge had emphasised the standard non-parole period and had not made any error of the kind demonstrated in Muldrock v The Queen. The court also considered the applicant's history of incarceration and the extent to which sentences may have been imposed concurrently if dealt with together. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no error in the approach demonstrated by the sentencing judge, and that leave to appeal should be granted but the appeal dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The court held that there was no error in the approach taken by the sentencing judge, and that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for appeal. The court emphasised the importance of the principle of totality and the standard non-parole period in sentencing, and noted that it was not the role of the sentencing judge to make independent inquiries into other matters not before them. The court also noted that the applicant had a history of incarceration and that the sentences may have been imposed concurrently if dealt with together, but that this was not a sufficient ground for appeal in the circumstances of this case.