R v M, Ste

The appellant, R v M, appealed against sentences imposed by a sentencing judge, primarily challenging the declaration that he was a serious repeat offender and arguing that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The offences involved included persistent sexual exploitation of a child and aggravated indecent assault against three complainants, with the aggravating factor being the age of the victims, all under 14 years old.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge erred in declaring the appellant a serious repeat offender under section 20B of the relevant legislation, and if so, whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Specifically, the court had to determine the meaning of "convicted" for the purposes of section 20B, the sufficiency of the evidence to enliven the discretion to make such a declaration, and the adequacy of the judge's reasons for exercising that discretion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the discretion to declare a person a serious repeat offender is enlivened when the requisite number of separate offences or courses of conduct have been committed, irrespective of the timing of their conviction. The court found that the appellant had unequivocally been convicted of the offences for the purposes of section 20B, and that two offences committed after 27 July 2003 were sufficient to enliven the discretion. However, the court determined that the sentencing judge had given inadequate reasons for exercising the discretion, failed to address the threshold question of community protection, and did not consider the consequences of such a declaration. Consequently, the judge's discretion miscarried.

The Court of Appeal resentenced the appellant to a total term of imprisonment of seven years and nine months, with a non-parole period of three years and six months.