White and Stone v The Queen

The applicants, White and Stone, appealed against their sentences following pleas of guilty to multiple charges. The charges included burglary, theft, attempted theft, handling stolen goods, and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. Additionally, the applicants contested whether the trial judge erred by considering the facts of the attempted theft charge as an aggravating factor in relation to the burglary and theft charges. The applicants also sought an extension of time to file their application for leave to appeal.

The court considered the sentencing principles under the Sentencing Act 1991, particularly section 5(2)(b), and reviewed the decision in DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428. The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge did not err in treating the attempted theft as an aggravating circumstance. However, the applicants were granted an extension of time to file their application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal was subsequently granted. Despite these allowances, the appeals were dismissed as the applicants failed to demonstrate that the sentences were manifestly excessive or that the judge's consideration of the attempted theft charge as an aggravating factor was erroneous.

The court ultimately upheld the trial judge's sentencing decisions, finding no basis to interfere with the sentences imposed. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeals and affirm the sentences as determined by the trial judge.