R v Flowers

This matter concerned a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Flowers, by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Crown argued that the non-parole period fixed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by Refshauge, Penfold and Ross JJ of the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues before the Court were the principles governing Crown appeals against sentence, particularly where the inadequacy of a non-parole period was alleged, and the relationship between a head sentence and the non-parole period. The Court was required to consider the relevant factors for fixing a non-parole period and whether there was a residual discretion to refuse to intervene in the original sentence.

The Court reasoned that while Crown appeals against sentence are not to be undertaken lightly, intervention is warranted where the original sentence is demonstrably unjust or inadequate. The Court emphasised that the non-parole period must reflect the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, and that it should not be disproportionately short compared to the head sentence. Applying these principles, the Court found the original non-parole period to be manifestly inadequate.

Consequently, the Court upheld the Crown's appeal. The respondent was resentenced for the offences of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and attempted aggravated robbery. The Court imposed a head sentence of six and a half years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.