The State of Western Australia v Mackey

The State of Western Australia appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Mackey, who was convicted of one count of grievous bodily harm and one count of stealing a motor vehicle. Mackey was sentenced to 2 years 6 months' immediate imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm charge and 9 months' immediate imprisonment for the theft, to be served concurrently. The total effective sentence was 2 years 6 months' immediate imprisonment, with a parole eligibility order made. The State appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentence imposed for the grievous bodily harm was manifestly inadequate and that the total effective sentence infringed the first limb of the totality principle. Leave to appeal was granted on 20 January 2017 by Mazza JA.

The court had to decide whether the sentence imposed for the grievous bodily harm was manifestly inadequate and whether the total effective sentence infringed the first limb of the totality principle. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for the sentence to reflect the community's condemnation of the offence. The court also had to consider the need for the sentence to provide just punishment and deterrence, and the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court had to consider the totality principle, which requires that the total effective sentence should not be manifestly inadequate or excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offending.

The court found that the sentence imposed for the grievous bodily harm was manifestly inadequate. The court found that the offence was a planned and deliberate attack on a friend, who was stabbed multiple times in the abdomen, causing life-endangering injuries. The court found that the respondent showed no remorse and made no attempt to assist the victim or to call for help. The court found that the sentence of 2 years 6 months' immediate imprisonment was manifestly inadequate in relation to the seriousness of the offending. The court also found that the total effective sentence of 2 years 6 months' immediate imprisonment infringed the first limb of the totality principle. The court found that the total effective sentence did not reflect the community's condemnation of the offence or provide just punishment and deterrence. The court found that the total effective sentence was manifestly inadequate in relation to the seriousness of the offending. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was resentenced.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the conviction on count 1 be affirmed, and the respondent be resentenced on count 1. The court did not make any orders in relation to the sentence on count 2.