R v SIDDALL

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant in the District Court for three offences arising from his reaction to the death of his son in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant had expressed a deep-seated anger towards the driver and a front seat passenger involved in the accident, believing the driver's sentence was inadequate and that the passenger had escaped punishment. This anger manifested in threats and actions directed at both individuals, as well as a plan to confront police.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the sentence manifestly excessive, in declining to suspend the sentence, in relying on a prior conviction for aggravated assault that was not the appellant's, in attributing responsibility for an alleged threat without sufficient proof, and in describing the appellant as having an intermittent criminal record since his teenage years. The court was required to determine the accuracy of the appellant's criminal history as presented to the sentencing judge and its impact on the sentencing decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that grounds three and five of the appeal had been made out. Specifically, the court accepted that the sentencing judge had erred in taking into account a prior conviction for aggravated assault that belonged to another individual, and in describing the appellant as having an intermittent criminal record. The court noted that, when these inaccuracies were removed, the appellant had not offended for over 17 years, and his prior offending did not involve significant violence. The court also noted a further inaccuracy regarding a past imprisonment sentence that had not been served by the appellant.

The Court of Appeal re-sentenced the appellant to the same head sentence of 18 months imprisonment but reduced the non-parole period from 12 months to nine months. The new sentence was not suspended.