Sinclair v The Queen

The case of Sinclair v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentencing of the applicant, who was convicted of theft and armed robbery. The applicant was initially sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and a 12-month community correction order (CCO) by the County Court. Upon breaching the CCO, the applicant was resentenced to a total effective sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment with an 18-month non-parole period by the Supreme Court. The applicant argued that the disparity between the sentences imposed on him and his co-offenders was unjust and that the trial judge erred in imposing an aggregate sentence.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the judge was correct in imposing an aggregate sentence, and if the differential in sentencing between the applicant and his co-offenders was reasonably open. The court considered the principles of parity in sentencing and the impact of the applicant's background, including his age at the time of offending and his Aboriginal heritage, on the sentencing process.

The court found that the trial judge did not adequately consider the differences in seriousness between the offences committed by the applicant and his co-offenders. The court noted that the Crown conceded that the offences were significantly different in seriousness and that imposing an aggregate sentence was not reasonably open in the circumstances. The court held that the sentencing judge erred in imposing an aggregate sentence and allowed the appeal. The applicant was resentenced to a total effective sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment with nine months non-parole.

In light of the court's decision, the applicant's sentence was reduced, taking into account the appropriate principles of sentencing and the disparities in the sentences imposed on the co-offenders. The court's decision was influenced by the cases of Stevens v The Queen [2020] VSCA 170 and DPP v Frewstal Pty Ltd (2015) 47 VR 660, as well as the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991.