Modra v The Queen

The appellant, Modra, appealed against his sentence for offences involving obtaining property by deception. The appeal concerned the sentencing judge's consideration of a victim impact statement, the application of section 26 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) to multiple dishonesty offences, and the calculation of the total loss sustained by the victims.

The Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in considering contentious facts in the victim impact statement, whether the judge failed to properly apply section 26 of the Sentencing Act by not identifying notional individual sentences for each offence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the dispute over the quantum of loss.

The Court held that while sentencing judges should not refer to unproven facts in victim impact statements, it was not clear that the judge had taken an allegation of destroyed paperwork into account as an aggravating factor. Regarding section 26, the Court affirmed that it is often desirable to impose a single penalty for multiple dishonesty offences to reflect the overall criminality, and a failure to identify notional individual sentences does not constitute an error of law, particularly where it would lead to an "air of unreality." The Court also found that the sentencing judge did not err by failing to make a precise finding of loss, as it was evident that the victims had sustained substantial financial losses regardless of the exact amount. Consequently, the Court found the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Permission to appeal was granted on one ground, but refused on others. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that even if an error were identified, they would have imposed at least the same head sentence and non-parole period on resentence.