R v Peet

This case concerned a Crown appeal against a sentence imposed on the respondent, who had been convicted of three counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for each. The appeal was heard by Kourakis CJ, Doyle and Hinton JJ. The central dispute revolved around the non-parole period fixed by the sentencing judge.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in fixing the non-parole period and, if so, what non-parole period should be substituted. This required the court to consider the application of the totality principle to the setting of a non-parole period for multiple life sentences for murder, and the statutory provisions governing mandatory minimum non-parole periods for murder in South Australia, specifically sections 32(5)(ab) and 32A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) (and their equivalents in the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA)).

The court acknowledged that the respondent conceded the sentencing judge had erred. The court affirmed that a non-parole period reflects the minimum proportion of a head sentence that justice requires an offender to serve, a principle modified by statutory provisions for life sentences for murder. These provisions establish a mandatory minimum non-parole period of 20 years, but allow for longer periods if warranted by objective or subjective factors, or shorter periods if special reasons exist. The court considered the totality principle applicable and, after reviewing the circumstances, determined that a further reduction in the non-parole period was not warranted, despite the length of the period and its impact on the respondent.

The court granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the original non-parole period, and substituted a new non-parole period of 36 years, commencing from 30 May 2016. This decision reflected the gravity of the offences, involving the murder of three people, including two young children.