TRH v The Queen

The case of TRH v The Queen concerned an appeal against a sentence imposed on the appellant. The appeal was heard by Kelly, Blokland and Hiley JJ in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central dispute revolved around the principles of inter-jurisdictional sentencing and the application of legislative provisions governing the imposition of penalties, particularly in light of changes to the relevant offence provisions.

The legal issues before the court included the correct application of the principles established in *Mill v The Queen* concerning the sentencing of an offender for offences committed in different jurisdictions. Specifically, the court had to consider how to achieve a just and proportionate sentence that reflected the appellant's whole of criminal conduct, especially in the absence of statutory authority for concurrent sentencing between jurisdictions. The court also had to determine the applicability and effect of section 121 of the Sentencing Act, which deals with the application of alterations in penalties, and the implications of section 55A of the Sentencing Act on minimum non-parole periods.

The court reasoned that section 121 of the Sentencing Act was not applicable in this instance because it governs situations where the penalty for a particular offence is increased or decreased while the underlying offence provision remains unchanged. In this case, the offence provision (section 132 of the Criminal Code) had been substantially altered between the commission of the offences and the appellant's sentencing, including changes to the age of the child, the scope of prohibited acts, and the maximum penalty. The court affirmed that legislative requirements restructuring sentences must be given proper effect and that the principles in *Mill v The Queen* do not permit courts to circumvent legislative restrictions through convoluted measures. The court also considered the principle of totality and the potential for delay to influence sentencing, ultimately finding that the sentence imposed was proportionate. The court also addressed the effect of section 55A of the Sentencing Act, noting that an increase in a minimum non-parole period due to its introduction was not an increase in penalty, referencing *Siganto v R*.

The appeal was dismissed.