Teryaki v The Queen

Teryaki appealed against the sentence imposed by the County Court, which was 3 years’ imprisonment for aggravated carjacking, theft, attempted aggravated carjacking, and attempted carjacking. The non-parole period was set at 2 years. The respondent, The Queen, argued against the appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, if there was an undue disparity in the sentences between the applicant and her co-offender, and whether the sentencing judge erred in finding a high likelihood that the applicant would receive therapeutic services in custody that would assist in parole eligibility. The court considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, intellectual impairment, and harmful behaviour in custody.

The court found that the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive, given her co-offender was sentenced to a 12-month community correction order. The court also found that there was an undue disparity in the sentences between the applicant and her co-offender, as the co-offender had a lesser role in the offending and had a better chance of rehabilitation outside of custody. The court further found that the sentencing judge erred in finding a high likelihood that the applicant would receive therapeutic services in custody that would assist in parole eligibility, as such services were unavailable for female offenders in the applicant's situation. The court noted that the applicant's intellectual impairment and harmful behaviour in custody made her a vulnerable person who would benefit from rehabilitation outside of custody. The court considered R v Eliasen (1991) 53 A Crim R 391, which held that a sentence should not be manifestly excessive and that there should not be an undue disparity in sentences between co-offenders.

The court allowed the appeal and resentenced the applicant to 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months. The court found that this sentence was appropriate, given the applicant's extensive criminal history, intellectual impairment, and harmful behaviour in custody. The court also noted that the resentence would provide the applicant with an opportunity to receive rehabilitation outside of custody, which would assist in her parole eligibility. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the applicant's sentence be quashed, and she be resentenced to 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months.