R v HARVEY

The appeal concerned sentences imposed by the District Court on the appellant for two groups of offences. The first group, committed in 2008, involved damaging property, being unlawfully on premises, and carrying an offensive weapon. The second group, committed in 2009, comprised two counts of attempting to dissuade a witness. The appellant argued that the sentences for both sets of offences, and the overall non-parole period, were manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed for the 2008 and 2009 offences were manifestly excessive, and consequently, whether the non-parole period was also excessive. A key issue was whether the sentencing judge had been misled by the prosecutor regarding the maximum penalty for one of the 2008 offences, and whether adequate credit had been given for the appellant's guilty pleas.

The court found that the sentencing judge had been misinformed by prosecuting counsel about the maximum penalty for damaging property, being told it was ten years imprisonment when it was actually two years. This error likely influenced the sentence imposed for the 2008 offences. The court also considered the nature of the 2009 offences, describing them as "not the most serious offences of their kind," and noted the appellant's guilty pleas and efforts towards rehabilitation. Applying these considerations, the court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the appellant.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentences imposed by the District Court were set aside. In their place, the court imposed sentences of eight months imprisonment for the 2008 offences and seventeen months imprisonment for the 2009 offences, to be served consecutively. A non-parole period of ten months imprisonment was fixed, dating from 4 March 2011.