A sentence of two years' imprisonment for theft of a chattel of very small value (a television sold for $50) is manifestly excessive even where the theft occurred in the context of serious sexual offending and the offender had prior dishonesty convictions. Similarly, a sentence of two years for a sexual assault constituted solely by rubbing the victim's legs near her genital area, and three years for supply of a drug of dependence to a child who was an experienced drug user and near-adult, were manifestly excessive. The double punishment prohibition under s 51 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) is not infringed where a sentencing judge refers to the supply of drugs as context for the victim's vulnerability when sentencing for a sexual assault, provided the punishment is for the sexual assault in aggravated circumstances rather than for the act of supply itself.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.