Readhead v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, Readhead, appealed against his sentence of 9 years' imprisonment for five counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery, committed while on parole. The State of Western Australia opposed the appeal. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the principle of totality had not been adequately applied. The principle of totality requires that when a sentence is imposed for multiple offences, the court must take into account any time already served on other sentences to avoid excessive punishment.

The court needed to determine whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the principle of totality when imposing the 9-year sentence. The court also had to assess whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate or excessive, and if the totality principle had been appropriately applied in determining the cumulative term.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the principle of totality, as the 9-year sentence was cumulative with the appellant's existing sentences, which amounted to 1048 days. The court held that the principle of totality had not been properly applied, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the sentencing judge for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of the principle of totality in sentencing to prevent excessive punishment.