The applicant has three young nephews who also live on the island. According to the material in the record, they had reported to the applicant an incident in which Berkefeld had spoken to them in a way which is described as having caused them "some disquiet". It was the combination of drink and the applicant's self-righteous indignation that led him to carry out this raid on the Berkefeld house. When he entered the house, he was, according to Mrs Berkefeld, accusing Mr Berkefeld of being a child molester.

I am not at all persuaded that this circumstance can in any way be regarded as a mitigating factor. Indeed, it might, if anything, have a contrary effect. Vigilante action, from which Australia has happily been free so far, is notorious for the serious consequences that it often entails. Quite frequently, they are unintended and, on occasions, of course, the wrong person is selected as the target of this kind of rough justice. In any circumstances, attacks of the kind that were carried out here have a potential to inflict serious injuries.

In the present case, the applicant used the baseball bat and according to the information in the record, he wielded it with both hands. His target was a man in the safety of his own house and a woman who had not, on any view of the matter, any connection with the offence which her husband had committed or with any such further offence that the applicant thought might be committed.

The case is not like that of Bower-Miles and Smith with which we dealt earlier today, in which the applicants were themselves the recipients of what Mr Martin for the Crown helpfully described as summary justice, by which it is meant that the assailants in that case sustained considerable injuries at the hands of their intended victims. Three years imprisonment is a lengthy period, but it is plainly not beyond the range. The decision in Bunney to which reference was made tends to support that conclusion.

The applicant may have been fortunate in attracting a recommendation for early parole after twelve months. It may have been merited by factors mentioned by Mr Gorman in his submissions, that is to say, the applicant's good work history, his record of working with youth and assisting with the rugby league playing at Inala, and also his good employment record. He is a leading hand with a sandblasting firm, from whom he has a reference which would assure him of continued employment notwithstanding this offence.

The case therefore is not one in which we can take account of the same sort of factor as led us to consider that we were able to reduce the sentence in the previous case of Bower-Miles and Smith.

The applicant here was 27 years old when he committed this offence. He has previous convictions including a conviction for assaulting police in December 1993, but in all the circumstances, so far as one can gather them from the record, those offences are of little real significance in this context.

Taking all these matters into account, together with the principles on which we act, which is that we do not sit here to resentence the offender, but simply to see whether the sentence is within the range of sentences for this kind, I am not able to persuade myself that either the head sentence or the effective sentence imposed in the present case is manifestly excessive.

In those circumstances, I would refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

WILLIAMS J: In my view, this was a fairly serious illustration of the offence which has become colloquially described as "home invasion". It was more serious because it occurred at night and the applicant was armed with a baseball bat. A significant custodial sentence was called for. I agree with the reasons of the learned presiding Judge. The application should be refused.

McPHERSON JA: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.