R v Bandjak

The appeal concerned Peter Bandjak, the appellant, who had been convicted in the District Court of South Australia on his plea of guilty to one count of deception, contrary to s 139(b) of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA). The dispute centred on the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, with the appellant arguing that errors of fact had been made which led to a miscarriage of discretion and an excessive sentence, including the refusal to suspend the term of imprisonment.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the sentencing judge had made factual errors relevant to the determination of sentence, and whether the judge erred in refusing to suspend the imposed term of imprisonment. The appellant contended that these misapprehensions led the judge to treat the offending more seriously than the facts warranted.

The Court found that the appellant's submissions were well-founded. It identified two specific misapprehensions by the sentencing judge: firstly, the judge incorrectly characterised the appellant as a financial advisor when he was a security officer, and secondly, the judge attached little significance to the appellant's previous good character, viewing his apparent respectability as a tool to gain the victim's trust. The Full Court determined that these errors led to an inflated assessment of the gravity of the offending.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the original sentence. A new sentence of two years and three months imprisonment was imposed, with a non-parole period of sixteen months. This sentence was not suspended.