Snodgrass v The Queen

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, Mr Snodgrass, by a sentencing judge. The dispute arose from the appellant's challenge to the length and structure of the sentence, which comprised over 200 offences against more than 200 victims. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in their approach to grouping the charges, applying partial concurrency within those groups, and adequately considering the totality of the sentence. The court also had to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the appellant's personal circumstances were exceptional enough to preclude the application of serious repeat offender provisions.

The Full Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the sentencing judge's method of grouping offences by type and applicable discounts was not erroneous. It was open to the judge to use partial concurrency to achieve an appropriate sentence, given the complexity of over 200 offences and victims, and the varying maximum penalties and discounts associated with different categories of offending. The court found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the totality of the sentence, and it was not so "crushing" as to warrant further reduction. The sentence was deemed appropriately lengthy due to significant breaches of trust involving patients, sexual partners, and the appellant's daughters. Furthermore, the court found no error in the conclusion that the appellant's personal circumstances were not exceptional enough to exempt him from the serious repeat offender provisions.