R v Thomas Sam; R v Manju Sam (No. 18)

The respondents, Thomas Sam and Manju Sam, were convicted by a jury of the manslaughter of their nine-month old daughter by criminal negligence. The child suffered from meningitis and died at hospital after the parents had failed to take her to medical assistance when she became unwell. The respondents appealed against the sentences imposed by the trial judge, contending that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly excessive. The court needed to consider whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appropriate penalty for the respondents’ offences, and whether the sentences imposed were outside the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed. The court also needed to consider the principle of parity, which requires that like cases be treated alike, and whether the sentences imposed were consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of the appropriate penalty for the respondents’ offences. The court found that the respondents had committed objectively grave offences, and that the sentences imposed were within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed. The court found that the principle of parity did not require the sentences to be reduced, as the sentences imposed were consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal.

The court did not make any orders altering the sentences imposed by the trial judge. The sentences imposed by the trial judge remained in place.