R v Bahrami

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, Livesey and Bleby JJ, considered an appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court. The appeal concerned the appropriate reduction to be applied to a sentence due to an early guilty plea, in circumstances where the offending was particularly abhorrent and caused significant distress.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in law by misinterpreting section 40(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) and relevant High Court authorities. Specifically, the court had to determine if the judge was bound to apply the maximum permissible reduction for the guilty plea, or if other sentencing considerations, such as community protection and the nature of the offending, could justify a lesser reduction.

The Full Court held that the sentencing judge had erred in law by misunderstanding the relevant authorities and the application of section 40 of the Sentencing Act. The court reasoned that while section 40 provides a yardstick and a maximum reduction for a guilty plea, it does not mandate the maximum reduction in all circumstances. The court emphasised that where community protection is paramount, or where the guilty plea is undermined by prior conduct such as false denials and the implication of others, a substantially smaller reduction than that provided by the applicable band may be justified. Allowing a reduction so great as to compromise public purposes, particularly community protection, risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

Permission to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The sentence imposed in the District Court was set aside. Kourakis CJ, with Livesey and Bleby JJ agreeing, determined that a reduction of just under 31 percent for the guilty plea was appropriate, resulting in a sentence of six years and 11 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. Livesey and Bleby JJ, in their separate reasons, considered a 30 percent reduction appropriate, leading to a sentence of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. Both judgments agreed that but for the guilty plea, a sentence of ten years would have been imposed.