The State of Western Australia v Babakarkhil

The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent was criminally responsible for aiding his co-accused to commit grievous bodily harm and whether the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, conditionally suspended for 12 months, was manifestly inadequate. The Court found that the trial judge erred in determining the extent of the respondent's aiding and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court resentenced the respondent to 21 months' imprisonment.

In The State of Western Australia v Babakarkhil, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the State against the sentence of the respondent, Maywand Babakarkhil, who was convicted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. The Court found that the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent was criminally responsible for aiding his co-accused to commit grievous bodily harm and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court resentenced the respondent to 21 months' imprisonment. The Court found that the respondent knew that Blake Slatter was about to be assaulted or might be assaulted and that the respondent intended all his acts to assist his co-offenders in assaulting Blake Slatter. The Court also found that the sentence imposed on the respondent was unreasonable and plainly unjust even on the factual basis for sentencing found by the trial judge. The Court exercised its residual discretion and resentenced the respondent to 21 months' imprisonment.