SAE v Commissioner of Police

The appellant in this case was convicted in the Normanton Magistrates Court on 10 April 2017 for contravention of a domestic violence order, obstructing a police officer, and breaching a suspended sentence. The appellant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the contravention of the domestic violence order, with parole after five months. The court did not further punish the appellant for the obstruct police officer offence, but ordered the appellant to serve the entire six-month suspended sentence cumulatively on the nine-month sentence for the contravention of the domestic violence order. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate failed to consider the principles of totality and the appellant's mitigating circumstances. The central issues in this case were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing magistrate was manifestly excessive, whether the magistrate erred by not considering the principles of totality, and whether the magistrate failed to give due weight to the appellant's mitigating circumstances.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the sentencing magistrate was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the cumulative sentence to be appropriate given the seriousness of the contravention of the domestic violence order and the appellant's criminal history. The court also found that the magistrate had properly considered the principles of totality and the appellant's mitigating circumstances. The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing magistrate could have imposed and that there was no error in the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal against the sentence of nine months imprisonment cumulative, in respect of a contravention of a domestic violence order. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing magistrate had properly considered the principles of totality and the appellant's mitigating circumstances. The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing magistrate could have imposed and that there was no error in the sentence.