R v Hunter

The case of *R v Hunter* involved an appeal by the Crown against a sentence imposed on the respondent. The dispute centred on whether the sentencing judge had properly exercised their discretion, with the Crown contending that the seriousness of the drug offence was not adequately characterised, and that insufficient weight was given to deterrence while too much weight was placed on the respondent's personal circumstances. The appeal was heard by Peek, Stanley, and Nicholson JJ.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and if so, whether appellate intervention was warranted. The court was required to consider the principles governing Crown appeals against sentence, particularly in circumstances where the Crown alleges a failure to properly exercise sentencing discretion. This involved assessing whether the sentencing judge had misapplied established sentencing principles.

The court considered the respondent's argument that permission to appeal should be refused due to considerations of double jeopardy and the respondent's rehabilitation since his arrest in 2014, as well as the fact that his imprisonment term had been suspended in 2017. The respondent argued that imposing immediate imprisonment on appeal would be unduly harsh on him and his family. However, the court referenced established principles from cases such as *Hili v The Queen* and *Dinsdale v The Queen*, which state that appellate intervention on the grounds of manifest inadequacy is only justified if there has been a misapplication of principle, not simply because the outcome differs from other cases. Factors relevant to manifest inadequacy, similar to manifest excess, include the maximum sentence, customary sentencing standards, the seriousness of the offence, and the offender's personal circumstances. A finding of manifest inadequacy means the sentence does not properly serve the purpose of punishment.

The court ultimately refused permission to appeal.