R v FRANCIS

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the appellant, who had been found guilty by a jury of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, two counts of aggravated assault, and five counts of aggravated threatening harm against his former domestic partner. The sentencing judge imposed a four-year term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months, refusing to suspend the sentence due to the seriousness of the offences. The appeal was heard by Doyle CJ, Vanstone and Kourakis JJ.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether fresh evidence, in the form of a psychologist's report concerning the wellbeing of the appellant's current partner and infant child, should be received on appeal, and whether the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of their discretion by not suspending the sentence.

The Court held that the fresh evidence should not be received. Applying the principles established in *R v C*, the Court considered the public interest in the finality of litigation and the likelihood that the further material would have had an important influence on the sentencing decision. The Court found that the psychologist's report, which suggested the appellant's return to the family home would best meet the emotional needs of his current partner and children, did not substantially alter the sentencing considerations that were before the sentencing judge. The Court noted that the diagnosis of postpartum depression could and should have been obtained and presented to the sentencing judge, and that receiving such material after sentence had been imposed would undermine the ordinary sentencing process. Consequently, the Court concluded that the sentencing judge did not err in their decision not to suspend the sentence.