R v RM

The respondent, RM, was convicted of seven child sex offences committed when they were a juvenile. After the respondent pleaded guilty, the court imposed a sentence consisting of a five-year good behaviour bond and a suspended aggregate sentence of two years imprisonment. The Crown appealed against the sentence on several grounds, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The primary issues for the court to decide were whether there was an error in the identification of the discount for remorse, the imposition of a suspended aggregate sentence, the imposition of a single bond for five offences, whether the indicated sentences revealed an error in the aggregate sentence, whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate, whether indicating non-parole periods for the indicated sentences was in error, whether the individual bonds were manifestly inadequate, and whether the overall sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that there was no error in the identification of the discount for remorse, as the discount was properly calculated. However, the court found that there was an error in imposing a suspended aggregate sentence, as this was not appropriate in cases involving multiple offences committed against children. The court also found that there was an error in imposing a single bond for five offences, as this did not reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the indicated sentences did not reveal an error in the aggregate sentence, and that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court found that indicating non-parole periods for the indicated sentences was in error, as these should not have been indicated at all. The court found that the individual bonds were manifestly inadequate, and that the overall sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court exercised its residual discretion to re-sentence the respondent, imposing a sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months.

The court's final orders were that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and the respondent be re-sentenced to a sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months. The court also ordered that the sentence be backdated to the date of the original sentence, and that the respondent be released on parole after serving two years and eight months of the sentence.