The State of Western Australia v Viskari

The State of Western Australia has appealed against a sentence given to Viskari, a defendant convicted of multiple serious criminal offences. The dispute revolves around the application of the totality principle in sentencing and whether the aggregate sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the original sentence breached the totality principle by being excessively punitive and whether the sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed. The court also needed to assess whether the lower court had correctly considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence.

The court found that the lower court had indeed breached the totality principle by imposing a sentence that was not aligned with the overall gravity of the crimes. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the aggregate sentence does not excessively exceed the individual seriousness of each offence, thereby upholding the principle of proportionality. The court identified that the lower court had not adequately balanced the severity of the individual offences with the overall impact of the sentence on the defendant. In light of these findings, the court set aside the orders for cumulation and concurrency and increased the total sentence from 7 years 1 month to 9 years 1 month, ensuring that the sentence better reflected the totality of the defendant's offending.

Having allowed the appeal, the court issued orders setting aside the previous cumulation and concurrency provisions and increasing the total sentence. The new sentence of 9 years 1 month was deemed to be a more appropriate reflection of the defendant's offending and in compliance with the totality principle. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the principles of sentencing to ensure that sentences are fair, just, and proportionate to the crimes committed.