R v X A

In this case, the appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that the non-parole period represented an unusually high proportion of the total effective sentence, and that there was no explanation for this. The appellant also argued that the sentencing judge had failed to attach sufficient weight to the appellant's late plea of guilty, and had failed to accord any weight to the appellant's mental illness, which made imprisonment unusually burdensome. The appellant further argued that the total effective sentence imposed after part cumulation of the sentence on one presentment was excessive, and that the non-parole period fixed in respect of the sentence on each presentment was not justified.

The legal issues before the court were whether the non-parole period represented an unusually high proportion of the total effective sentence, whether the sentencing judge had failed to attach sufficient weight to the appellant's late plea of guilty, whether the sentencing judge had failed to accord any weight to the appellant's mental illness, and whether the total effective sentence imposed after part cumulation of the sentence on one presentment was excessive. The court held that the non-parole period represented an unusually high proportion of the total effective sentence, and that there was no explanation for this. The court also held that the sentencing judge had failed to attach sufficient weight to the appellant's late plea of guilty, and had failed to accord any weight to the appellant's mental illness, which made imprisonment unusually burdensome. The court held that the total effective sentence imposed after part cumulation of the sentence on one presentment was excessive.

The court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the appellant. The court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty to the offences on two separate presentments on the one occasion, and that the total effective sentence imposed in respect of the sentences on multiple counts on one presentment was excessive. The court also noted that the non-parole period fixed in respect of the sentence on each presentment was not justified. The court held that the appellant was a serious sexual offender, but that the sentencing judge had failed to specify when the appellant became a serious sexual offender for sentencing purposes. The court re-sentenced the appellant, fixing the non-parole period at a lower proportion of the total effective sentence, and taking into account the appellant's late plea of guilty and mental illness. The court also specified when the appellant became a serious sexual offender for sentencing purposes.