The Queen v Hem

The Director of Public Prosecutions (the Director) appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Hem, by the County Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the appropriateness of the original sentence, which the Director argued was manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred in exercising their discretion by imposing a non-custodial sentence, specifically a suspended sentence, when the gravity of the offence warranted a term of imprisonment. The Director contended that the original sentence failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending conduct and the need for general deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and constituted an error of law. The court reasoned that the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for a custodial sentence to reflect community condemnation and deter others. Consequently, the court allowed the Director's appeal, quashed the original sentence, and resentenced Hem to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months, with a non-parole period of two years. These sentences were backdated to commence on 3 October 2019.