RWB v R

The case before the Court was an appeal against sentence. The appellant had been convicted of sexual assaults committed in the early 1970s and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. The appellant argued that the non-parole period should be reduced to reflect the sentencing practices of the earlier time. The Crown submitted that the non-availability of remissions in modern sentencing should not be a relevant matter in determining the non-parole period. The Court was required to decide whether the non-parole period should be reduced to reflect the sentencing practices of the earlier time.
The Court held that the non-parole period should be set to reflect the pattern of sentencing at the time the offences were committed. The Court held that the non-availability of remissions in modern sentencing should not be a relevant matter in determining the non-parole period. The Court held that the non-parole period should be set to reflect the pattern of sentencing at the time the offences were committed, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The Court held that the appellant's sentence was manifestly inadequate and increased the non-parole period to eight years.

The Court ordered that the non-parole period be increased to eight years. The Court held that the appellant's sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the non-parole period should be set to reflect the pattern of sentencing at the time the offences were committed. The Court held that the non-availability of remissions in modern sentencing should not be a relevant matter in determining the non-parole period. The Court held that the non-parole period should be set to reflect the pattern of sentencing at the time the offences were committed, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.