Ralph Carr was sentenced to six years in prison, with a four-year non-parole period, for two rapes and a sexual assault. For many, the punishment feels profoundly inadequate.

In this edition of From the Desk, Adam Shand examines why the judge could not sentence according to public anger alone—and how precedent, proportionality, comparable cases and Carr’s personal circumstances shaped the result. He also asks what could happen if other complainants came forward and Carr were convicted of further offences. Could a new sentence keep him behind bars for considerably longer?