R v Hollitt

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought leave to appeal the sentence imposed on the respondent who was found guilty by a jury of two counts of blackmail. The respondent had threatened to publish sexually explicit photographs of the victim on the internet unless she engaged in sexual acts with him. The respondent was sentenced to two years and forty-five days imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months. The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and whether the head sentence and non-parole period established or maintained an adequate standard of punishment for this type of offending.

The court considered that the respondent's conduct was serious, and the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for blackmail reflect the gravity of the crime and serve as a deterrent to others. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and failed to establish or maintain an adequate standard of punishment. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The court re-sentenced the respondent to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was re-sentenced to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that sentences for blackmail reflect the seriousness of the crime and serve as a deterrent to others.