R v Lolesio

The case before the court was an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent for two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, under section 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offences were committed against the respondent's infant daughter, resulting in multiple injuries. The sentencing judge had imposed an aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The Crown contended that the sentencing judge had erred in reducing the respondent's moral culpability based on the victim's behaviour, which was not reasonably open to him on the evidence. The Crown further argued that the sentencing judge had incorrectly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences and failed to provide adequate reasons for the aggregate sentence imposed.

The court examined the sentencing judge's remarks regarding the victim's behaviour and found them to be erroneous. The court held that the sentencing judge's consideration of the victim's behaviour in assessing the respondent's moral culpability was misplaced, as it did not appropriately account for the respondent's actions in causing the injuries. Furthermore, the court found that the sentencing judge had placed too much emphasis on the nature of the injuries, without adequately considering other circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had erred in finding that the objective seriousness of the offences fell well below the middle of the range.

The court also determined that the sentencing judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for the aggregate sentence imposed, in accordance with section 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court held that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently explained on what basis the aggregate sentence was structured and how he arrived at that view. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, given the very serious nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the respondent's position of trust. Consequently, the Crown's appeal was allowed, and the court proceeded to resentence the respondent. The court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years for the first count, and four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years for the second count, with an accumulation of one year.