RO v R

The respondent was convicted of numerous sexual offences against a child and sentenced to a total of 12 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years. The respondent appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in determining the objective seriousness of the offences, in relying on the Veen principles, and in not including the parole period in backdating the sentence. The respondent argued that the totality principle was breached, and that a lesser sentence was warranted in law. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the respondent to the same length of sentence, but with a new commencement date.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the objective seriousness of the offences, in relying on the Veen principles, and in not including the parole period in backdating the sentence. The Court held that the sentencing judge erred in determining the objective seriousness of the offences by using “Form 1 offences” as a basis for comparison. The Court further held that the sentencing judge erred in not including the parole period in backdating the sentence, thereby breaching the totality principle. The Court held that the sentencing judge did not err in relying on the Veen principles, as the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the totality of the offending and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to re-sentence the respondent. The Court held that a lesser sentence was warranted in law due to the errors identified above. However, the Court held that it was not appropriate to specify a longer sentence that would have been imposed. Instead, the Court imposed the same length of sentence as the original sentence, but with a new commencement date that included the parole period. The Court held that this approach was consistent with the totality principle and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

In summary, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the respondent to the same length of sentence, but with a new commencement date. The Court held that the sentencing judge erred in determining the objective seriousness of the offences and in not including the parole period in backdating the sentence, but did not err in relying on the Veen principles. The Court exercised its discretion to re-sentence the respondent, and imposed the same length of sentence as the original sentence, but with a new commencement date that included the parole period.