R v Mittiga

The appeal concerned a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the District Court on the appellant, who was found guilty by a judge alone of multiple counts of indecent assault, unlawful sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, and gross indecency. The offences were committed against three young sisters, with some counts occurring after the appellant had been arrested and was on bail for earlier offences. The appellant was aged between 80 and 82 at the time of the offending and was 83 at the time of sentencing.

The central legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in the application of section 18A of the *Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988* (SA), whether adequate weight was given to the appellant's personal circumstances, particularly his age, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine if the method used to calculate the sentence was legally sound and if the overall sentence reflected an appropriate balance of punishment, deterrence, and consideration of the offender's age and circumstances.

The Supreme Court held that the sentencing judge had erred in the application of section 18A of the *Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988* (SA) by fixing separate non-parole periods for distinct groups of offences, which created uncertainty and an incorrect procedural outcome. The court found that the judge should have imposed a single non-parole period in relation to the combined head sentences after ordering accumulation. However, the court determined that the sentence itself was not manifestly excessive, acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, the position of trust the appellant occupied, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for general and personal deterrence. The appeal was allowed solely for the purpose of correcting the form of the sentence to remove ambiguity and ensure compliance with sentencing provisions.