R v T

In the matter of R v T, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of contempt and was sentenced to a total of 3 years and 10 months' immediate imprisonment. The court was tasked with assessing the proportionality and reasonableness of the sentence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The legal issues revolved around the appropriate range of sentences for contempt, particularly given the severity and persistence of the appellant's conduct in breaching court orders. The court also considered whether the prosecution's proposal for specific 1-month sentences for each count of contempt was permissible.

The court examined the appellant's conduct and concluded that it was indeed very serious, with significant elements of general and personal deterrence. However, the court found that the total sentence of 3 years and 10 months was disproportionate to the offending conduct, when considering all the circumstances. This conclusion was based on the comparison with other cases, where sentences of less than 2 years had been imposed for similar conduct. The court found that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust, leading to the conclusion that error was to be inferred from the outcome of the sentencing discretion. The court substituted a total sentence of 2 years' immediate imprisonment, finding that this was a more appropriate and proportionate sentence.

While the court noted that the prosecution should not propose specific sentencing ranges, it would impose individual sentences of 1 month's imprisonment in respect of counts 1-10, as this was consistent with the court's own assessment. The court emphasised the need to exercise the sentencing discretion afresh in relation to all counts of contempt. The final orders included a total sentence of 2 years' immediate imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for each count of contempt, reflecting the court's reassessment of the appropriate sentence.