Warner v The King

In *Warner v The King*, the appellant, Mr Warner, appealed against his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr Warner had been convicted of multiple offences, including maintaining unlawful sexual relationships with children and persistent sexual abuse of children. The appeal concerned the appropriate method for sentencing when multiple offences are involved and the overall length of the sentence imposed.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were how to properly discharge the statutory requirement to indicate the individual sentences that would have been imposed for each offence, even when a single sentence is imposed for multiple offences, and how to ensure proportionality and achieve the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence and rehabilitation, in such circumstances. The Court also considered the appropriateness of imposing cumulative versus concurrent sentences for offences of a similar nature against different victims.

The Court reasoned that the requirement to indicate individual sentences is best met by imposing separate sentences for each offence, which may then be made concurrent to achieve overall proportionality. Alternatively, if a single sentence is imposed under section 26 of the relevant legislation, the court must still indicate the individual sentences that would have been imposed and explain the reasons for the overall reduction, often focusing on the risk of a "crushing" sentence. The Court found that the sentencing judge's starting points for some offences were lenient, particularly for the offending against ZH and MS, and that a sentence of 14 years for ZH would not have been disproportionate. For AH, a significant downward departure from the guideline was difficult to justify. The Court determined that cumulative sentences were appropriate for the more serious offences against ZH and MS, with sentences for other offences being largely concurrent to maintain proportionality. The Court ultimately concluded that while the head sentence imposed by the judge was excessive, a sentence significantly less than 24 years could not be justified without compromising sentencing objectives, given the appellant's persistent and predatory behaviour.