R v Alexander aka Fairfax

The appeal by Alexander, also known as Fairfax, against his sentence was heard in the relevant Australian court. The appellant had pleaded guilty to a series of offences including attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, uttering counterfeit money, possessing counterfeit money, and obtaining financial advantage by deception. In addition, the appellant was dealt with for committing an offence while on a suspended sentence. The appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for each offence, with a non-parole period of three years, to be served concurrently. The unserved balance of a partially suspended sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment was also activated, to be served concurrently with the six-year sentence. The appellant, with an extensive criminal history under many aliases, argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge should have taken into account his plea of guilty and the eight months he had already served in custody prior to sentencing. Specifically, the appellant contended that the non-parole period should have been two to two and a half years to reflect his pre-sentence custody.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge should have taken into account the appellant's plea of guilty and the time already served in custody. The court considered the appellant's extensive criminal history, the nature and seriousness of the offences, and the principles of sentencing. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's plea of guilty and the time already served in custody. The court determined that the non-parole period was correctly set at three years, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant's extensive criminal history, the nature and seriousness of the offences, and the principles of sentencing were taken into account in imposing the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's plea of guilty and the time already served in custody. The court concluded that the non-parole period was correctly set at three years, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.