R v AB (No 2)

In this case, the appellant, AB, appealed against his sentence for manslaughter. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. AB had killed his victim in response to threats that were perceived to be directed at him and his family. The Crown accepted that AB was provoked, but argued that the killing was nevertheless a response of manifest excess. AB argued that he was provoked by the perceived threats, which amounted to an attack on his family, and that the sentence should be reduced.

The court was required to determine whether AB's killing was a response of manifest excess to the provocation, and whether the maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment was relevant to the sentencing of AB. The court was also required to consider whether the non-parole period should be reduced.

The court found that AB's killing was a response of manifest excess to the provocation. The court held that the maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment was not relevant to the sentencing of AB because the offence was committed before the increase in the maximum penalty. The court also found that the non-parole period should be reduced to 11 years' imprisonment. The court held that the original sentence of 15 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years was manifestly inadequate, and that the effective sentence of 19 years' and one month imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years was also manifestly inadequate. The court imposed a non-parole period of 11 years' imprisonment.

This appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence is quashed. A sentence of 15 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years' imprisonment is imposed.