R v Henstridge No. Sccrm-97-320

The appellant in this case was convicted of armed robbery and breaching parole, and subsequently received a sentence of imprisonment for both offences. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court judge. The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the appellant's plea of guilty and time spent in custody. The court found that the sentence of seven years for the armed robbery was not manifestly excessive, but the sentencing judge failed to make any reference to the appellant's plea of guilty and time spent in custody. The court set aside the original sentence and imposed a new sentence of seven years, seven months and 23 days, with a non-parole period of five years, both to date from 26 November 1997.

The court found that the appellant's prior criminal history, including armed robbery and breaching parole, justified a significant sentence. However, the court took into account the appellant's plea of guilty and time spent in custody, and reduced the sentence accordingly. The court also noted that the appellant had made efforts to rehabilitate himself while in custody. The court concluded that the new sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence. The court emphasised that the new sentence should not be regarded as indicating any departure from the normal standards of sentencing for this serious offence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the original sentence. The court imposed a new sentence of seven years, seven months and 23 days, with a non-parole period of five years, both to date from 26 November 1997. The court emphasised that the new sentence reflected the peculiar circumstances of this case and should not be regarded as indicating any departure from the normal standards of sentencing for this serious offence.