MT v The Queen

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by Murrell CJ, Mossop and Thawley JJ, heard an appeal by the appellant, MT, against sentences imposed by the ACT Supreme Court for murder and other serious offences committed on 15 March 2019. At the time of the offences, the appellant was 17 years and 2 months old. The sentencing judge had imposed a total sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, with a portion suspended, and the appellant contended that the sentencing judge had erred by failing to apply the principles applicable to the sentencing of young offenders and by setting the unsuspended period of imprisonment as though it were a non-parole period.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the sentencing judge had erred by failing to apply the principles for sentencing young offenders as set out in Chapter 8A of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT), particularly section 133D, and whether the judge had incorrectly treated the unsuspended period of the sentence as a non-parole period. The appellant also argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive, due to a failure to properly recognise the young offender sentencing regime, inadequate regard to subjective features, insufficient acknowledgement of the drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offences, being diverted by sentencing ranges from other jurisdictions, and applying insufficient sentencing discounts for his guilty pleas.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had erred by setting the unsuspended term of the total sentences of imprisonment as though it were a non-parole period. This error necessitated a re-sentencing of the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant had consumed LSD and cannabis prior to the offences, and that the events involved a violent attack on multiple individuals, including the deceased. The Court concluded that due to the error in treating the unsuspended term as a non-parole period, it was necessary to re-sentence the appellant, and it was not required to address the other grounds of appeal or recalculate the sentencing discount. The appeal was allowed, and a re-sentence was imposed.