Sun v R

The applicant, Sun, appealed against a sentence imposed after being convicted of threatening to inflict actual bodily harm with intent to have sexual intercourse, contrary to s 61K(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The primary issue before the court was whether the primary judge erred in failing to take into account the applicant's unverified statement of remorse and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The court also considered the impact of the applicant's unusual and irrational motive on the seriousness of the offence and whether the primary judge's finding that there was no intention to inflict actual bodily harm was correct.

The court examined the principles governing the assessment of sentences in the context of appeals and the factors that should be considered when evaluating an offender's remorse. It noted that while an unverified statement of remorse could be relevant, it should not be given undue weight. The court also discussed the objective seriousness of the offence and how the offender's motive and the primary judge's finding on the intention to inflict actual bodily harm should be considered in the sentencing process. The court concluded that the primary judge did not err in the manner in which they assessed the sentence and that the sentence imposed was not excessive.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering the offender's motive and the primary judge's findings when assessing the seriousness of the offence and the appropriateness of the sentence. It also highlighted the need for a balanced approach when evaluating an offender's remorse, ensuring that it is given appropriate weight without being the sole determining factor in the sentencing process.