R v Lau

The case of R v Lau involved a respondent who had been convicted of multiple instances of sexual and related offending committed over a considerable period of time against eight separate victims. The Court of Appeal for the State of New South Wales was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The Crown appealed the sentence, asserting that it was manifestly inadequate given the nature and extent of the respondent's offending, which included predatory behaviour, some of which was premeditated, and a serious breach of trust towards the victims. The aggregate sentence imposed was imprisonment for 10 years with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge had applied the correct principles and approach in sentencing. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of the offending and failed to recognise the fundamental purposes of sentencing. The Crown relied on latent error, pointing to factual errors and omissions in the sentencing judge's reasons, as well as an inadequate assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending. The Crown also argued that the sentence did not align with the indicative sentences provided for the offences and that there was confusion between matters relevant to the offender's subjective case and those that might justify special circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The reasoning of the trial judge contained factual errors and omissions, and the reasons were inadequate in properly assessing the objective seriousness of the offending. The Court noted a displacement between the findings as to the objective seriousness of the offending and the indicative sentences, and found that the brevity of the individual instances of offending was of limited relevance. The Court also found an apparent error in not treating the fact that one episode of offending occurred in the victim's home as an aggravating circumstance. The Court was further concerned by a lack of clarity as to what aggravating circumstances were in fact taken into account and confusion between matters relevant to the offender's subjective case and those that might justify special circumstances. The Court concluded that the sentence failed to recognise the fundamental purposes of sentencing and that intervention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Crown appeal was allowed, and the sentence was quashed. The respondent was re-sentenced by the Court of Appeal.