R v Clancy

Ms Clancy appealed against a sentence imposed by a sentencing Judge, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that the Judge erred in proceeding on an unproven factual basis. The appeal was heard by Sulan, Kelly, and Blue JJ.

The Court was required to determine whether the sentencing Judge erred in his findings of fact and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Specifically, the Court considered whether two findings made by the sentencing Judge were supported by the evidence and, if not, whether these errors alone warranted interference with the sentence. The Court also had to assess whether the sentencing Judge’s starting point for the sentence was appropriate, particularly in comparison to sentences for similar serious assaults involving multiple offenders.

Per Sulan and Blue JJ, the appeal was allowed because the factual basis upon which the sentencing Judge proceeded contained two findings not supported by the evidence. However, these errors were not considered sufficient, in themselves, to justify interfering with the sentence. The majority found that the sentencing Judge’s starting point was manifestly excessive, noting its similarity to starting points for serious assaults involving multiple offenders. Kelly J dissented.

The Court reduced Ms Clancy's sentence to ten years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years' imprisonment.