R v Thorn

The Crown appealed against the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge on the respondent, R. The appeal concerned the sentencing of the respondent for various offences.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge manifested an error, and if so, whether it was demonstrably inadequate. The court was required to consider the purposes of sentencing as outlined in section 7 of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT), including the imposition of partly consecutive sentences and the principle of totality.

The appellate court affirmed that an appellate court should not substitute its own views for those of the sentencing judge unless there is a clear error. The court found that the sentence imposed did not manifest such an error, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.