Xian v The King

Xian was convicted of aggravated home invasion, aggravated burglary, and criminal damage. He appealed against his sentence, which included a term of imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of three years for the aggravated home invasion, and a total effective sentence of five years and six months. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or whether it infringed the principle of parity, and whether there was any 'special reason' why the minimum non-parole period should not be imposed.

The Court found that the sentence did not infringe the principle of parity or manifestly excessive. It also found that there was no'special reason' why the minimum non-parole period should not be imposed for the aggravated home invasion. However, the Court granted leave to appeal on the basis of 'new' or 'fresh' evidence, which included psychological material evidencing borderline intellectual functioning, features of dependent personality disorder and extreme vulnerability in adult custody.

The Court of Appeal considered that the evidence provided a compelling reason to reconsider the sentence. The Court found that there was a special reason why the minimum non-parole period should not be imposed, given the evidence of the appellant's psychological state and vulnerability. The appeal was therefore allowed and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration of the sentence.

The Court did not make any final orders, as the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration of the sentence.