R v Hartwig; Ex parte

In the case before the court, the Crown appeals against the sentence imposed on the 19-year-old respondent for his involvement in the unlawful killing and wounding of alpacas, while the respondent contends that the sentence imposed is inherently undesirable. The respondent and his 16-year-old co-offender were caught on CCTV footage throwing objects at and repeatedly striking two alpacas, resulting in the death of one alpaca and the euthanisation of another. The respondent was sentenced to six months imprisonment for wilfully and unlawfully killing an alpaca by night and three months imprisonment for wilfully and unlawfully wounding an alpaca by night. The sentencing magistrate also imposed a restitution order and ordered that the respondent be released on parole immediately, while the co-offender was sentenced to 12 months probation and 80 hours of community service.

The Crown submits that the sentencing magistrate erred in not ordering a period of actual incarceration and that the magistrate was overly influenced by the non-custodial sentence imposed on the juvenile co-offender. The Crown argues that considerations of parity should have been given little weight due to the application of differing sentencing regimes. The respondent contends that the imposition of a short term of actual imprisonment is inherently undesirable. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing magistrate erred in regarding considerations of parity as particularly important in circumstances where co-offenders are sentenced under different statutory regimes and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the sentencing magistrate erred in not imposing a period of actual incarceration and that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The court held that the sentencing magistrate gave undue weight to considerations of parity, as the co-offender was sentenced under a different statutory regime. The court noted that the respondent's offending was particularly egregious, and the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. The court allowed the appeal, varied the sentences imposed, and ordered that the respondent be released from the date of the order under the supervision of an authorised Corrective Services officer for a period of 18 months, among other things. The court also revoked the parole order and confirmed the restitution and prohibition orders.