Standen v The King

In *Standen v The King*, the appellant, Standen, appealed against a sentence imposed by the District Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the severity of the sentence, which Standen argued was based on a factual error regarding the number of child abuse images he had accessed. The appeal was heard by Pearce and Jago JJ in the Court of Appeal of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had made an error of fact that was material to the sentence imposed. Specifically, the court had to determine if the sentencing judge's finding concerning the number of child abuse images accessed by the appellant was demonstrably wrong and, if so, whether this error warranted interference with the sentence.

Pearce and Jago JJ reasoned that an error of fact is material to sentence if it is a significant factor that demonstrably influenced the judge's sentencing discretion. In this instance, the court found that the sentencing judge had proceeded on the mistaken belief that the appellant had accessed a substantially higher number of child abuse images than was supported by the evidence. This factual error was considered material because it likely led to a more severe sentence than would otherwise have been imposed. The Court of Appeal applied the principle that a sentence may be set aside if it is based on a significant factual error that misdirects the sentencing discretion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence imposed by the District Court, and remitted the matter to the District Court for re-sentencing.