Regina v Michael Lenard; Regina v Michael Fail

The defendants, Michael Lenard and Michael Fail, appealed against their convictions and sentences for charges including threats to influence a witness, extortion, and other related offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issues the court was required to address were the adequacy of the sentences imposed on the defendants and the correctness of their convictions.

The High Court considered the gravity of the offences, which involved serious threats and extortion aimed at influencing a witness in a criminal proceeding, thereby undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases of this nature. Regarding the sentences, the Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and that the court should consider whether a different sentence was warranted in law. The court assessed the objective criminality of the offences and the totality principle, which requires the court to consider the totality of the offender's criminal conduct. The High Court found that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and that a different sentence was warranted in law.

After reviewing the objective seriousness of the offences and the subjective circumstances of the defendants, the court concluded that the sentences should be increased. The High Court also considered the calculation of the non-parole period and whether the special circumstances warranted a departure from the statutory ratio. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the sentences and ordered that the defendants be re-sentenced, with directions for the lower court to ensure that the new sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences and served the purposes of general deterrence and denunciation.