R v Lane

In *R v Lane*, the appellant was convicted in the District Court of aggravated criminal trespass in a place of residence and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years. This conviction arose from an incident where the appellant broke into a house armed with a jemmy bar and knife, was chased out by the homeowner, and subsequently injured a neighbour who attempted to apprehend him while fleeing. The jury had acquitted the appellant of a charge of aggravated recklessly causing harm, which related to the neighbour's injury.

The appeal raised three grounds: whether the sentencing judge made a factual error regarding the appellant's antecedents, whether the judge erred in taking into account the neighbour's injury when sentencing for the trespass offence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge did not err in summarising the appellant's antecedents, and any potential error was favourable to the appellant. However, the Court held that the judge did err in taking the neighbour's injury into account when sentencing for the aggravated criminal trespass. The Court reasoned that there was a sufficient separation between the injury and the conduct constituting the trespass offence, and crucially, the injury had been the subject of a charge on which the appellant had been acquitted. The Court emphasised that an acquittal should not be compromised by the sentencing process. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive, and re-sentenced the appellant to ten years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.