R v Mellor

The case of R v Mellor involved an appeal against sentence by the applicant, who had entered pleas of guilty to charges of using electronic communication to procure a child under 16 and grooming a child under 16. The applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for each of the electronic communication counts and a concurrent six months imprisonment for the grooming count, with the sentences suspended after the applicant had served four months in custody for a period of three years. The applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that exceptional circumstances existed to justify a non-custodial sentence, and that the trial judge failed to properly exercise the sentencing discretion by taking into account the impact of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld).

The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had failed to properly exercise the sentencing discretion. The court held that the applicant's offending conduct, including the predatory and persistent nature of the offences, the age disparity between the applicant and the complainant, and the position of trust occupied by the applicant, warranted a sentence of imprisonment. The court also held that the failure to have regard to the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld) did not constitute an error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.

The court concluded that the applicant's offending, even in the context of the mitigating factors, did not establish exceptional circumstances. The court found that the sentence did not evidence a misapplication of principle or was plainly unjust. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the applicant became a reportable offender regardless of whether he was ordered to serve any of the periods of imprisonment in actual custody. The court found that the mere fact that the applicant became a reportable offender did not render a sentence of actual imprisonment manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentencing discretion was properly exercised and that the sentence was in accordance with proper sentencing principles.