R v Kane

In the case of R v Kane, the applicant appealed against his sentences for burglary and child stealing, arguing that the sentences were manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge erred in considering general deterrence. The applicant's bipolar disorder was a significant factor in his offending behaviour. The court was required to determine whether the sentences were appropriate in light of the circumstances, including the applicant's mental health and the lack of violence or sexual intent in the abduction.

The court considered various comparative sentences, noting the wide range of outcomes in similar cases. Relevant factors included the relationship between the child and the offender, the duration of the abduction, and the absence of violence or sexual motivation. The court also addressed the argument that general deterrence was an inappropriate consideration given the applicant's mental health condition. Ultimately, the court found that the sentences were manifestly excessive and that general deterrence was not an appropriate consideration in this case.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal against the sentences. The original sentences were set aside and replaced with concurrent terms of three years' imprisonment for each count, with credit for the applicant's pre-sentence custody. The applicant was ordered to be admitted on parole on a specified date.

The court's final orders included granting leave to appeal, setting aside the original sentences, imposing new concurrent sentences of three years' imprisonment, and ordering the applicant's admission on parole on a specific date, taking into account the time already served.