R v Hunter

This case concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated theft by force. The appellant had unsuccessfully attempted to carjack two members of the public using a machete on 14 January 2014. He was subsequently sentenced in the District Court to seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years, both backdated to commence from his date of custody. The appeal was heard by Gray, Peek, and Nicholson JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether fresh evidence, which the appellant sought to introduce, was admissible and, if so, whether its exclusion at the original sentencing hearing would result in an unjust sentence. The court considered the principles governing the reception of fresh evidence on a sentence appeal, which require the evidence to have been unavailable or unobtainable with reasonable diligence at the initial hearing, to be credible, and likely to have an important influence on the outcome. The court also addressed the relevance of hardship to dependents under section 10(1)(n) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, noting that such hardship is generally only considered in extreme or exceptional circumstances.

The court reasoned that while the circumstances of the appellant's children and their caregivers were tragic, they did not constitute extreme or exceptional circumstances that would warrant a merciful approach to sentencing. The court found that the children were in state care and, at least for the foreseeable future, in the capable care of their grandfather, and that these matters were likely before the sentencing judge. The court concluded that the proposed fresh evidence was not of such a nature as to have an important influence on the sentence and would not lead to a materially significant modification of the non-parole period.

Consequently, the court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and directed the Magistrates Court and the District Court to correct their records to accurately reflect the relevant offences.