R v Flentjar

The appellant, R v Flentjar, appealed against a sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge. The appellant had pleaded guilty to 20 offences committed over a period of approximately seven weeks, while he was on parole. The sentencing Judge imposed a total sentence of nine years, five months and seven days imprisonment, which included an unexpired parole period of four years, two months and seven days, and set a non-parole period of four years and 11 months. The appeal was heard by Kourakis CJ, Sulan and David JJ.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing Judge had placed too much emphasis on deterrence given the appellant's mental state, and whether the Judge had erred in failing to adequately apply the principle of totality when aggregating the sentences for the various offences.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing Judge had properly considered the appellant's mental state and correctly concluded that deterrence remained a paramount consideration. The Court held that the sentences imposed were within the acceptable range. Regarding the principle of totality, the Court clarified that an unexpired parole period cannot be strictly accounted for under this principle, although it is a relevant personal circumstance of the offender. Consequently, there were no grounds to interfere with the sentencing Judge's decision not to reduce the sentence based on the totality principle.