The State of Western Australia v Riley

This appeal concerns the sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated offences committed against his former partner, AB, and their children. The appeal was brought by the State on the grounds that the individual sentences were manifestly inadequate and that the total effective sentence was unreasonable or unjust. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was resentenced to a total effective sentence of 4 years 6 months' imprisonment. The appeal court found that the original sentences did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending, the need for personal and general deterrence, or the maximum penalties applicable to the offences. The court also found that the total effective sentence did not reflect the overall criminality of the respondent's offending.

The respondent was convicted of aggravated threat to kill, aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and aggravated deprivation of liberty. The offences were committed in the presence of the respondent's young children and in breach of a restraining order intended to protect AB. The respondent had a history of violent offending against AB and was declared a serial family violence offender. The maximum penalties for the offences were 10 years, 7 years and 14 years respectively, reflecting the seriousness of offending committed in circumstances of aggravation. The original sentences imposed were 14 months, 6 months and 20 months respectively, to be served concurrently or cumulatively for a total effective sentence of 2 years 2 months. The appeal court found these sentences to be manifestly inadequate and plainly unreasonable or unjust. The court resentenced the respondent to 18 months, 12 months and 3 years respectively, to be served cumulatively or concurrently for a total effective sentence of 4 years 6 months. The court considered that a sentence of immediate imprisonment was appropriate and that the respondent should be eligible for parole.