R v King

The Crown appealed against the sentences imposed on the respondent, King, for multiple offences of acts of indecency or sexual intercourse with a young person. The central issue on appeal was whether the sentences, both individually and in aggregate, were manifestly inadequate, particularly in light of the principle of totality.

The court was required to determine if the original sentences failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for punishment and deterrence. This involved considering the operation of the principle of totality, which dictates that the aggregate sentence should not be excessive, but also that it should reflect the cumulative gravity of multiple offences. The court also considered the utility of comparing the sentences to those in other cases and the relevance of prescribed maximum penalties in assessing inadequacy.

The court found that the original sentences were indeed manifestly inadequate. It reasoned that the aggregate sentence did not sufficiently reflect the gravity and number of offences committed, nor did it adequately apply the principle of totality to achieve a just and proportionate outcome. The court noted that while comparisons with other cases can be of limited utility, the prescribed maximum penalties for the offences provided a benchmark for assessing the inadequacy of the sentences imposed.

Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the respondent was resentenced. The court imposed new, significantly longer custodial terms for each of the 25 counts, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 10 months.