MLP v R

The case of MLP v R involved the appellant who was convicted of sexually assaulting his 9-year-old daughter. The appellant was exercising his right of access at the time of the offence and his two other children were present. The appellant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 11 years and an additional term of 5 years, making a total term of 16 years. The Court of Criminal Appeal found the sentence to have been infected by the Muldrock error and referred the matter to the court to determine whether some other sentence was warranted.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case, and whether the court had adequately considered the objective seriousness of the offence and the long-term psychological effects on the victim. The court was also required to consider whether the use of sentencing statistics for comparative purposes was appropriate in this case.

The court found that the sentence imposed was infected by the Muldrock error and was therefore inappropriate. The court noted that the offending was isolated and did not form part of a pattern of behaviour. The court emphasised the need to determine an appropriate sentence according to principle as opposed to numerical equivalence. The court also noted the necessity to bear in mind the long-term psychological effects on the victim and the importance of care when conducting comparisons of sentences.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to determine whether some other sentence was warranted. The court noted that the appellant's offending was of a serious nature and warranted a significant penalty, but the sentence imposed was inappropriate in light of the circumstances of the case.