Regina v The Queen

The case of *Regina v The Queen* involved an appeal against a sentence of five years imprisonment imposed on Joseph Richard Regina by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory. The appellant was convicted of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis plants. He also appealed the sentencing judge's decision not to fix a non-parole period. The offending involved the establishment and cultivation of cannabis at multiple sites in a remote area of the Northern Territory, demonstrating a high degree of organisation and criminality.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the total period of imprisonment, considering the appellant's extensive criminal history and prior sentences, was too severe under the totality principle, and whether the sentencing judge erred in declining to fix a non-parole period. The court was required to consider the appellant's long criminal record, including previous drug offences and an escape from lawful custody, and how these factors interacted with the current sentence and the principle of totality, particularly in light of the appellant's continuous period of custody since 1999.

The court reasoned that the sentencing judge had ample grounds to conclude that the appellant was a hardened offender with no remorse, for whom personal deterrence and public protection were paramount, justifying the refusal to fix a non-parole period. Regarding the totality principle, the court acknowledged the complexity arising from the appellant's escape and the inter-jurisdictional nature of his offending and sentencing. While the sentencing judge had imposed a "stern" sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the aggregate period of custody, which would amount to nine years and three months, was just and appropriate, having regard to the totality of the appellant's criminal conduct and the principles established in cases such as *Mill v The Queen* and *R v Todd*.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that the sentencing judge had correctly exercised discretion in declining to fix a non-parole period, given the appellant's history and lack of remorse. While the totality principle was applicable, the court concluded that the total period of imprisonment was not so severe as to warrant interference, finding that the sentencing judge's remarks indicated a focus on imposing a stern sentence rather than overlooking the totality principle.