In this appeal case we acted for a client charged with a number of offences of possessing and supplying indecent articles. The offences each carried a maximum penalty of a fine, and prior appellate cases indicated the maximum fine was not expected to be particularly large for each individual offence. The client had also been charged with more serious offences at the same time, which had resulted in a term of imprisonment. That sentence was imposed prior to the sentencing for the fine-only offences. The client had indicated they would plead guilty to the fine-only offences from the first appearance in court, and had delayed finalising the fine-only offences purely to see what sentence would be imposed in the District Court for the more serious offences. This was because that sentence was highly relevant to the sentence to be imposed for the fine-only offences. The client had maintained this indication across numerous court appearances, including offering to plead guilty to the fine-only offences at an early stage but the court indicating that was not necessary.

In the Magistrates Court a detailed plea in mitigation was presented. Unfortunately the Magistrate took the view that there had not been an early plea of guilty, which was factually correct but ignored the fact that an early plea had been indicated to the court from an early stage. The court imposed a hefty fine of $50,000 for the fine-only offences.

We lodged an appeal against sentence, asserting that the significant sentence breached the totality principle and also failed to reflect the appellant’s early indicated plea of guilty.

On appeal the Supreme Court agreed with our submissions in relation to the plea of guilty, and overturned the fine. The court resentenced the appellant to a fine that was almost half the original fine that was imposed in the Magistrates Court. This was a fantastic outcome for the client which resulted in a very favourable financial outcome for them.