R v Coleman

The appeal concerned the sentencing of Luke Floyd Coleman, who pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and to breaching a good behaviour bond for a prior assault offence. His co-offenders, who were armed during the trespass, received substantially similar sentences. A key point of contention on appeal was that the sentencing judge had mistakenly believed Coleman had made verbal threats during the commission of the trespass.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed for the attempted aggravated serious criminal trespass and the cumulative sentence for the assault breach were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the sentencing error regarding verbal threats, and whether the non-parole period was appropriate. The court was also required to consider the principle of parity between co-offenders, although Coleman's extensive criminal antecedents were a significant factor.

The court allowed the appeal in part. It accepted that the sentencing judge had made a factual error by assuming Coleman had made verbal threats, which warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court varied the sentence for the assault breach from six months to two months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively. This resulted in a total sentence of three years and two months imprisonment. The non-parole period was also reduced from one year and eight months to one year and six months.