O'Hara v The Queen

This case is an appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of 17 offences in an indictment. The appellant appealed the total effective sentence imposed on him, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that it infringed the first limb of the totality principle. The appellant also argued that the sentencing judge erred in law by applying an incorrect maximum penalty in respect of three counts on indictment. The respondent conceded that the sentencing judge had made the error alleged in ground 3 and that the error was material. The respondent submitted that this court should impose no different total effective sentence to that imposed at first instance. The appeal must be allowed. The court would resentence the appellant to a lesser total effective sentence. The court would impose the same individual sentences as were imposed at first instance in respect of the State offences. The court would impose individual sentences of immediate imprisonment as follows: count 6: 9 months' imprisonment; count 12: 9 months' imprisonment; and count 17: 10 months' imprisonment. The total effective sentence for all of the offences committed by the appellant is that the appellant must serve 4 years' imprisonment. He will become eligible for parole after serving 2 years' imprisonment from 13 October 2019.