R v UG

The appeal concerned the adequacy of sentences imposed on the respondent, UG, by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Crown appealed against the sentences, arguing they were manifestly inadequate.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the principle established in *R v Ellis* (1986) 6 NSWLR 603, rather than the provisions of ss 36 and 37 of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT). Further issues included the proper consideration of victim impact statements where the offence did not have an element relating to the victim's injury, and the correct calculation of sentence terms for multiple offences, applying the principle of totality as discussed in *O’Brien v The Queen* [2015] ACTCA 47.

The Court found that the sentencing judge had erred in applying the *Ellis* principle and that the provisions of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT) should have been applied. The Court also held that victim impact statements could be considered even where the offence did not involve direct physical injury to the victim, provided the harm suffered was relevant to sentencing. The principle of totality was applied to ensure the aggregate sentence reflected the overall criminality of the offender.

The appeal was allowed, and the offender was re-sentenced.