Repac v The King

The defendant, Repac, applied for leave to appeal against his sentence following his conviction for multiple counts of burglary and theft. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the judge had erred in considering property damage as an aggravating factor in the burglary charges and whether the total effective sentence of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months, was manifestly excessive. The court was also required to decide if there was a reasonable prospect that the Court of Appeal would reduce the total effective sentence if the alleged error were to be corrected.

The court found that while the trial judge had indeed erred in taking property damage into account as an aggravating factor, this error did not provide a reasonable prospect of the Court of Appeal reducing the total effective sentence. The court reasoned that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the totality of Repac's offending and the need for general deterrence. The court also noted that Repac had a history of offending and that the sentences reflected the seriousness of his crimes.

The court held that despite the error in considering property damage as an aggravating factor, the total effective sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the Court of Appeal would reduce the total effective sentence if the alleged error were to be corrected. Consequently, the court refused Repac leave to appeal against his sentence.