Ross v R

The appeal before the court was from a conviction and sentence for murder of a child under the age of three years by the applicant, who was in a position of trust. The applicant was subject to a series of assaults on the victim, which were not only repeated but also included a failure to seek medical attention which might have prevented the death of the victim. The applicant’s appeal against sentence was on the basis that the trial judge had erred in failing to give adequate weight to the onerous conditions of the applicant’s gaol in protective custody, including claims of ongoing fear of violence and hyper-vigilance.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. The court was also required to consider whether the trial judge had erred in failing to give any weight to the applicant’s onerous gaol conditions in protective custody, including claims of ongoing fear of violence and hyper-vigilance. The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the objective gravity of the offence had been properly assessed.

The court found that there was no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence. The court found that the objective gravity of the offence was properly assessed as being well-above the mid-range of offences of murder and approaching the worst case of murder. The court found that the absence of subjective factors of significance did not require a reduction in the sentence. The court found that the applicant’s claims of onerous gaol conditions in protective custody, including claims of ongoing fear of violence and hyper-vigilance, did not establish an error on the part of the trial judge. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence.