The State of Western Australia v Stoeski

The State of Western Australia brought an appeal against the sentence imposed on Stoeski, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of murder. The sentencing judge had imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 21 years on each count. The State argued that the minimum terms were manifestly inadequate. The primary issue before the court was whether the minimum non-parole periods imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the minimum terms imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly inadequate. In making this finding, the court considered the severity of the crimes, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court noted that the offender had committed two brutal murders, showing a high degree of premeditation and callousness. The court also noted that the offender had a history of violent criminal behaviour and had shown no remorse for his crimes. The court found that the minimum non-parole periods imposed by the sentencing judge did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes or the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

As a result of the court's findings, the appeal was allowed. The minimum non-parole periods imposed by the sentencing judge were set aside, and a minimum non-parole period of 27 years was substituted on each count. The court considered this to be a more appropriate sentence, given the seriousness of the crimes and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court did not make any other orders.