Mush v The Queen

The matter of Mush v The Queen concerned an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant by the Court of Appeal. The applicant was convicted of one count of burglary and six counts of sexual offending against a victim, including acts of indecent assault and rape. The offences occurred in 1985, but the applicant was identified as the offender in 2014. The applicant was sentenced to a total effective term of 19 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years. The applicant sought to appeal the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offences, the moral culpability of the applicant, and any mitigating circumstances. The court also had to consider whether the sentences imposed were in compliance with the principle of equal justice and whether the non-parole period was appropriate. The court found that the applicant's moral culpability was extremely high, given the protracted nature of the offending and the severe impact on the victim. The court also noted that the applicant had a prior criminal history and subsequent convictions for sexual offending. However, the court found that the sentences imposed were within the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences and that the orders for cumulation were appropriate. The court also found that the parole period was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offences.

The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the sentences imposed were in compliance with the principle of equal justice and that the non-parole period was appropriate. The court noted that the applicant's plea of guilty and the sentence's burden on the applicant were mitigating factors, but the long delay was not. The court found that the sentences imposed were within the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences and that the orders for cumulation were appropriate. The court also found that the parole period was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offences. The court refused leave to appeal.