Romero v The Queen

The case of Romero v The Queen involved the appellant, Romero, who was convicted of murder following a trial. The jury was invited by Romero's counsel to consider a verdict of guilty to defensive homicide as a mitigating factor. The appellant contended that the principles outlined in Verdins and Tsiaras should have been applied, arguing that these principles should have been considered during the plea stage despite being abandoned in that context. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the principles from Verdins should apply in sentencing despite being eschewed at the plea stage, and whether the sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 15 years was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the relevance of borderline intellectual disability as a mitigating factor and whether it had a causal connection with the offending. The court noted that there was no evidence establishing such a connection. Furthermore, the court examined the sentence's proportionality, assessing whether the non-parole period of 15 years was excessive relative to the 18-year head sentence. The court concluded that the ratio between the head sentence and the minimum sentence for lesser offences was generally inappropriate for serious crimes like murder, where high head sentences were common, and non-parole periods exceeding 80% of the head sentence were not unusual. The court held that the absence of explicit reasons for the non-parole period did not constitute an error.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Romero's appeal, affirming the trial judge's sentencing decision. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the principles from Verdins did not apply in the sentencing context despite being abandoned during the plea. The decision underscores the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the limited circumstances under which appellate courts will entertain arguments that were previously abandoned or eschewed.