Skocic v R

Skocic v R involved an appeal by the applicant against his conviction for breaking and entering a property in company and recklessly damaging property. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the basis of manifest excess of sentence, arguing that the sentencing statistics suggested his sentence was excessive.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's reliance on sentencing statistics alone was sufficient to establish manifest excess and whether the court should determine the sentence according to principles rather than numerical equivalence. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the appropriate factors to be considered in determining whether a sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the applicant's primary submission of manifest excess was based solely on the use of sentencing statistics, which was not sufficient to establish manifest excess. The court emphasised the importance of determining sentence according to principle and not numerical equivalence. The court held that the sentencing statistics alone were not sufficient to establish manifest excess and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The court did not make any orders as the application for leave to appeal was refused. The applicant's conviction and sentence therefore stood.