R v Fati

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against a sentence imposed by a sentencing judge on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to cultivating commercial and large commercial quantities of cannabis on three separate occasions between 2013 and 2015. The respondent was in immigration detention and had applied for voluntary removal, which would likely result in deportation.

The legal issues before the court concerned the appropriateness of the sentencing judge's decision to impose a suspended sentence with no conditions as to supervision, effectively avoiding a custodial sentence by reason of the respondent's impending deportation. The court was also required to consider whether the sentencing judge had acted on a wrong principle by failing to impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offending and undermined public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court reasoned that a sentence of imprisonment cannot be avoided by the mere expedient of consenting to deportation. It held that imposing a suspended sentence without any conditions of supervision amounted to no sentence at all and was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences, thereby undermining public confidence. The court emphasised that while the safety of the community is paramount, sentencing courts must also consider secondary purposes of sentencing, such as deterrence and rehabilitation, through proportionate sentences that reflect all relevant statutory and common law considerations. Furthermore, the court stated that sentencing standards, guided by principles of equality and consistency, must be maintained regardless of whether an offender is an Australian citizen or an unlawful non-citizen.

The court granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence imposed, and remitted the matter for resentencing.