Shok v The Queen

Shok was convicted of nine offences, and his sentence was the subject of appeal before the court. The offences included multiple counts of theft, attempted aggravated burglary, armed robbery, dangerous driving while pursued by police, use of an imitation firearm, driving unlicensed, and committing an indictable offence while on bail. The sentences imposed were varied and included terms of imprisonment ranging from one month to five years, with a total effective sentence of six years and seven months, and a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The appeal focused on whether the sentences for attempted aggravated burglary and armed robbery were manifestly excessive, as well as the overall total effective sentence and non-parole period. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the judge adequately considered mitigating factors during sentencing.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences for attempted aggravated burglary and armed robbery were manifestly excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offences. Furthermore, the appeal examined the total effective sentence and non-parole period to ensure they were not manifestly excessive in light of the cumulative impact of the sentences. Another aspect of the appeal was to assess whether the judge appropriately weighed the mitigating factors presented during sentencing. The Crown conceded that the sentence for driving unlicensed was manifestly excessive, and it was also noted that the judge was provided with an incorrect maximum penalty for one of the charges.

The court found that the sentences for attempted aggravated burglary and armed robbery were indeed manifestly excessive, as was the total effective sentence and non-parole period. The court also concluded that the judge did not give adequate weight to the mitigating factors in the sentencing process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the applicant was resentenced to one month to be served concurrently. Additionally, orders were made to address the failure to order mandatory licence disqualification in relation to two of the charges.