Stott v The Queen

The appeal in *Stott v The Queen* concerned a challenge to a sentence imposed by a single Judge of the Supreme Court. The appellant sought to appeal against the sentence handed down for an as yet unspecified offence.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in their assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the appellant. Further, the Court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was affected by a lack of parity with other offenders, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the principles of sentencing, including the need for an instinctive synthesis of all relevant factors. The Court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in their consideration of the objective seriousness of the offence or the subjective circumstances of the appellant. The Court also found no error in relation to parity, noting that comparisons should be made between ultimate sentences, not discounted ones, and that the sentencing judge had properly considered factors such as the appellant's contribution to the offence, age, and criminal antecedents. The penalty imposed was not outside the available range, and therefore not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.