R v Inkamala

The Northern Territory Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the Crown against a sentence imposed on the respondent, R v Inkamala. The Crown argued that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal also concerned the partial restoration of a sentence for a breach of a suspended sentence.

The Court was required to determine whether the original sentence imposed on the respondent was so inadequate as to be manifestly unjust. It also had to consider the appropriate approach to restoring a suspended sentence following a breach, and whether the partial restoration in this instance was lawful and appropriate.

Applying the principles established in *Veen v The Queen [No 2]*, the Court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The Court reasoned that the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to relevant factors, leading to an unduly lenient outcome. Consequently, the Court allowed the Crown's appeal, resentenced the respondent, and restored the original sentence that had been suspended.