R v H, ML

In the case of R v H, ML, the appellant, H, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 12 years. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and he subsequently sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had improperly considered uncharged acts that occurred outside the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing court was entitled to take into account these uncharged acts and whether the sentencing judge had regard to them for an impermissible purpose.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing court was justified in considering uncharged acts that occurred outside its jurisdiction, and if the judge had considered them for an impermissible purpose. The Court of Appeal considered that the sentencing judge had regard to the uncharged acts for an impermissible purpose, as they were not relevant to the appellant's culpability or the gravity of the offence, and their consideration led to an increase in the sentence. The court found that the sentencing judge's consideration of these uncharged acts was an error of law, and that the appeal should be allowed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence, set aside the sentence, and remitted the matter to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge should not take into account uncharged acts that occurred outside the court's jurisdiction unless they are relevant to the appellant's culpability or the gravity of the offence. The court also noted that the sentencing judge should ensure that any consideration of uncharged acts is for a permissible purpose and does not result in an increase in the sentence that is manifestly excessive.