Revealed: How top judges go soft on worst crims

Half of all defendants who challenged convictions or sentences in the Court of Appeal last year succeeded, leaving crime victims feeling betrayed.

A Herald Sun analysis of criminal appeals in 2009-10 also revealed that the sentences of more than 50 serious offenders were cut by the appeal court. But prosecutors and crime victims are seething over the failure of Crown appeals against lenient sentences.

The Court of Appeal ordered 19 retrials, and acquitted three people who'd been convicted, after finding errors by trial judges.

It upheld 76 of 160 defence appeals, but dismissed 20 of 34 appeals by the Victorian and Commonwealth DPPs.

Among those whose sentences stood after unsuccessful appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions were:

A THUG who used a cricket bat in an unprovoked attack on a teenage stranger and a man who came to the teen's aid, inflicting a fractured skull and a broken arm. He was given three years' jail, entirely suspended.

A SERIAL offender with four convictions for drink-driving who critically injured a pedestrian - who later died - as he rode an unregistered, unlit motorcycle at night while disqualified, drunk, and speeding. His minimum jail term was 16 months.

A DRUG dealer who trafficked in amphetamines, cocaine and a commercial quantity of ecstasy, and who possessed anabolic steroids and dealt in the proceeds of crime. His minimum was eight months.

A KILLER who hacked two women to death in front of four terrified children, fled interstate, assumed a new identity and evaded arrest for five years. His minimum was 20 years.

The Court of Appeal cut the sentences of:

TWO men - one with two prior convictions for recklessly causing injury - who bashed and kicked a helpless drunk who suffered a brain injury. Their 32- and 24-month sentences were cut to 24 and 14 months.

A VICIOUS thug with 25 prior convictions - including 11 for violence or threats of violence -who left his victim in a permanent vegetative state. His minimum term was cut from eight years to seven.

The Court of Appeal is under scrutiny from two reviews - one internal and one independent - of its role, procedures, and long delays in hearings.

The court upheld 47 defence appeals against sentence, 24 against conviction and five against both. It dismissed 58 and refused appeal leave in 26.

In several unsuccessful DPP appeals, the Court of Appeal agreed the sentences were manifestly inadequate, but would not interfere with them because no error in principle had been established. Manifest inadequacy alone was insufficient to justify interference with a sentencing judge's discretion, the appeal court said.

(Published by The Herald Sun – August 5, 2010)