R v Saleh

The appellant, Saleh, was convicted of common assault on a female and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a male, following a series of incidents in a queue at a COVID-19 testing site. The lower court imposed a sentence, which Saleh appealed on the basis of its severity and the court's failure to consider appropriate alternative sentencing options. The appeal centred on whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate or excessive, and whether the court had failed to consider suitable alternatives to imprisonment, such as an intensive correction order (ICO).

The court examined the principles governing the sentencing of offenders in cases of serious violence, including the need to balance the interests of justice with public safety. The court noted the nature of the offences, which occurred in the context of road rage during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the appellant's otherwise good character and lack of prior convictions. The court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, as it did not reflect the seriousness of the offences or adequately deter the appellant from future offending. Additionally, the court found that the lower court had failed to adequately consider alternative sentencing options, such as an ICO requiring home detention, which would better serve the interests of justice and public safety.

In light of the foregoing, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was quashed. The court imposed an ICO requiring home detention for a period of six months, with various conditions designed to ensure the appellant's rehabilitation and compliance with the order. The court also made orders for the appellant to participate in specified programs and counselling, and to pay compensation to the victims. The court emphasised the importance of considering alternative sentencing options in appropriate cases, particularly where the offender has no prior criminal history and the offences were committed in a unique context, such as during a pandemic.