R v Fulop

In the case of R v Fulop, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for accessing child pornography using a carriage service and for possession of child pornography. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge's failure to specify a commencement date for the state sentence resulted in an excessive cumulation of minimum terms, amounting to double punishment, and that the intended total effective sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appellant's sentence constituted double punishment, whether the total effective sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge should have specified a commencement date for the state sentence. The court held that while the failure to specify a commencement date for the state sentence did not constitute double punishment, it did result in an impermissible cumulation of minimum terms. The court further held that the intended total effective sentence, which was four years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of three years’ imprisonment, was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the appellant's remorse was not determined by his pleas of guilty and that the intended total effective sentence was manifestly excessive due to the nature of the offences and the appellant's culpability. The court reduced the intended total effective sentence to three years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of two years’ imprisonment, and ordered that the state sentence commence on 1 August 2018.