Suleiman v The State of Western Australia

The Suleiman case involved an appeal by the appellant against his sentence. The appellant had pleaded guilty to three offences. At the time of the offending, he was experiencing an acute relapse of a serious psychiatric illness, which was a causal factor in the commission of the offences. The prosecutor conceded at the sentencing hearing that the appellant should be sentenced on that basis. However, the sentencing judge rejected the prosecutor's concession and was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was suffering from an acute relapse of his serious psychiatric illness at the time of the offending. The appellant sought to admit additional psychiatric evidence in the appeal and argued that a miscarriage of justice had occurred when the appellant was sentenced by the sentencing judge.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in rejecting the concession by the prosecutor that the appellant should be sentenced on the basis of his psychiatric illness. A secondary issue was whether the appellant's procedural fairness was breached when the sentencing judge rejected the concession and did not allow the appellant to call additional psychiatric evidence.

The court held that the sentencing judge erred in rejecting the concession by the prosecutor that the appellant should be sentenced on the basis of his psychiatric illness. The court held that fairness is a practical concept, and the rules of procedural fairness are concerned to avoid practical injustice. In this case, the concession by the prosecutor that the appellant should be sentenced on the basis of his psychiatric illness was effectively an agreement between the parties on a proposition of law. The sentencing judge was not entitled to reject that concession without giving the appellant an opportunity to show why the concession should not apply. The court held that the appellant's procedural fairness was breached when the sentencing judge rejected the concession and did not allow the appellant to call additional psychiatric evidence.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a re-sentencing hearing before a different judge.