Stefani v The King

In the case of Stefani v The King, the applicant appealed against his sentence following a guilty plea to four charges of kidnapping and assault. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was reasonably open to them. The applicant received a total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years. This non-parole period represented 80% of the head sentence, which is outside the 'usual' range and the sentencing judge provided no reasons for their decision.

The court had to decide if the ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence was reasonably open to the sentencing judge, given that it was outside the usual range and no reasons were provided. The court considered relevant precedents such as McLean v The Queen, Cummins v The Queen, Kumova v The Queen, and Gray v R, which provided guidance on the appropriate ratio of non-parole periods to head sentences. The court also had to consider whether the absence of reasons from the sentencing judge meant the sentence was not reasonably open.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles established in the cited cases and found that the non-parole period of 8 years was not reasonably open to the sentencing judge. The ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence was outside the usual range, and the lack of reasons provided by the sentencing judge further undermined the reasonableness of the sentence. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence. Further orders regarding the sentence were not specified in the text.