R v RAD

In the matter of R v RAD, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to eight counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12, under their care, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the primary court. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years on each count, to be served concurrently, with parole eligibility after one year. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge did not give sufficient consideration to their remorse, plea of guilty, and the information volunteered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether sufficient consideration was given to the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. The court needed to determine if the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, and if not, what an appropriate sentence would be.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that insufficient consideration was given to the applicant's remorse, plea of guilty, and the information volunteered. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the applicant's background, and the principles of sentencing. The court held that an appropriate sentence would be two years imprisonment to be suspended after eight months on each count, with an operational period of three years. The court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence imposed by the primary court with the new sentence.