Nanai v The Queen

In Nanai v The Queen, the applicant, Nanai, was convicted of robbery and sentenced to six years imprisonment by Solomon DCJ. Nanai appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the requirements of section 22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which found that the sentence was indeed excessive and that the sentencing judge did not adequately explain why the discount for a guilty plea was declined.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing judge adequately considered the requirements of section 22 of the Sentencing Procedure Act, and whether the disparity in sentences was proportionate to the culpability and personal circumstances of the offender. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the sentencing judge did not adequately explain why the discount for a guilty plea was declined, and that the disparity in sentences was proportionate to the culpability and personal circumstances of the offender.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive based on the objective circumstances of the case. The court noted that the applicant had a significant criminal history, including convictions for aggravated robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. However, the court also noted that the applicant had completed a number of courses in drug and alcohol and computers while in custody, and had obtained employment after his release. The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately explain why the discount for a guilty plea was declined, and that this was an error of law. The court also found that the disparity in sentences was proportionate to the culpability and personal circumstances of the offender, and rejected the parity ground of appeal.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing. The applicant was re-sentenced to imprisonment for 4½ years, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The court noted that the applicant’s significant criminal history was a relevant aggravating factor, but also noted that the applicant had taken steps to address his drug and alcohol issues and had obtained employment after his release. The court also noted that the victim had suffered significant injuries as a result of the attack. The court found that the new sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender.