Loading
The attorney-general’s counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal should conclude the sentence was “unreasonable and plainly unjust”, and was so far outside the range of sentences that an error must have occurred.
But the court on Friday dismissed the case, finding the attorney-general could not demonstrate the sentence was manifestly inadequate, or that an error had occurred.
The judges said the prosecution launched the appeal with the “fundamental misconception” that sentences for kidnapping offences were comparable to McDonald’s deprivation of liberty charge.
The appeal court referenced the sentencing judge’s ruling on the basis that the prosecution had not sought to prove intent that is required for a charge of kidnapping.
The prosecution instead pursued deprivation of liberty, which holds a lesser maximum sentence.
The appeal judges said the attorney-general “ignored the consequences” of the prosecution’s choices in framing the charges of deprivation of liberty instead of kidnapping, which McDonald pleaded guilty to.
“The argument presented on behalf of the attorney-general fails to demonstrate that the sentence was manifestly inadequate,” the appeal judges ruled.
Frecklington later expressed her disappointment over the outcome.
“This sentence was appealed because I did not believe it met community expectations,” she said in a statement.
“I am disappointed in the outcome and my thoughts remain with the victim and her family.”
AAP
Read the full article here
