Wyka v The Queen

The applicants, Wyka and another, sought leave to appeal against their sentences imposed following pleas of guilty to home invasion, reckless conduct endangering life, and other related offences. They entered the home of another with intent to assault and carrying loaded shotguns, firing a total of seven shots into the second door of the home, endangering the lives of others inside. The applicants were each sentenced to a total effective term of seven years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years for each. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had based the sentence on the incorrect premise that each applicant fired seven shots, whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, whether the sentences were manifestly disparate, and whether the evidence of increased hardship of imprisonment due to the COVID-19 pandemic provided an independent ground for appeal.

The court considered the nature of the offences and the circumstances in which they were committed. The applicants had entered the home with intent to assault and carried loaded shotguns, firing multiple shots into the home. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in the way the sentences were calculated. The court also considered the totality of the offending, the seriousness of the offences, and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and were not manifestly disparate. The court further found that the evidence of increased hardship of imprisonment due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not provide an independent ground for appeal.

The applications for leave to appeal against the sentences were refused. The court found that the sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances and did not amount to a manifest excess or disparity. The court did not find that the evidence of increased hardship of imprisonment due to the COVID-19 pandemic provided an independent ground for appeal. The applicants' sentences of seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years each were upheld.