R v Tilley

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the appellant by a sentencing judge. The appellant had initially been convicted of aggravated threatening life and commenced serving that sentence. However, this conviction was later overturned on appeal, and the appellant was released on bail pending a re-trial. Subsequently, the appellant pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of threatening life. The sentencing judge imposed a term of 19 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months, backdating the sentence by 14 months. The appellant had spent a total of 14 months and 22 days in custody throughout the proceedings, but was on bail at the time of sentencing for the threatening life offence. The appeal raised questions as to whether the backdating of the sentence was inappropriate, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge erred in backdating the sentence by 14 months rather than the full period of 14 months and 22 days spent in custody.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal. The Court held that section 30(2) of the *Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988* (SA) authorised the sentencing judge to backdate the sentence even though the appellant was not in custody up to the date of sentencing. This provision was found to apply irrespective of whether the time spent in custody related to a more serious offence. The Court further reasoned that the sentencing judge was justified in concluding that a period of parole was appropriate and that this could only be achieved by backdating the sentence. Consequently, backdating the sentence to include time when the appellant was not in custody was considered appropriate in the circumstances. The Court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge was not obliged to backdate the sentence to cover the precise number of days the appellant had spent in custody.