Adam Wright (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen - [2022] VSCA 137

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2022 0014

ADAM WRIGHT (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 July 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 137
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Wright] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Meredith, 10 November 2021)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – 5 charges of indecent assault, 2 charges of attempted incest – Where applicant committed acts of abuse against daughter over many years – Total effective sentence 8 years 6 months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – High moral culpability – Delay between offending and sentence – Whether insufficient weight given to applicant’s age, good character and prospects of rehabilitation – Whether insufficient weight given to principle of totality – Sentence within range – Leave to appeal refused.

---

Appearances (on the papers)
Counsel
Applicant:		Mr M R Page
Respondent:		Ms E Drake
Solicitors
Applicant:	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON JA:

Introduction

The applicant was convicted by jury trial of six counts of indecent assault[2] and one count of attempted incest.[3] Following a plea hearing, he was sentenced as follows:
[2]Four of the charges (charges 1–4) related to offences under s 44 of the Crimes Act 1958. Two charges (charges 7 and 8) were contrary to s 39 of the Crimes Act. No verdict was taken from the jury in relation to a further charge of indecent assault (charge 6), which was charged as an alternative lesser charge to the charge of attempted incest (charge 5).
[3]This charge (charge 5) was contrary to ss 44(1) and 321M of the Crimes Act.

Charge	Offence	Maximum penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Indecent assault [Crimes Act s 44]	5 years’ imprisonment	3 years’ imprisonment	1 year
2	Indecent assault [Crimes Act s 44]	5 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ imprisonment	8 months
3	Indecent assault [Crimes Act s 44]	5 years’ imprisonment	1 years’ imprisonment	-
4	Indecent assault [Crimes Act s 44]	5 years’ imprisonment	3 years’ imprisonment	1 year
5	Attempted incest [Crimes Act ss 44(1) and 321M]	20 years’ imprisonment	5 years’ imprisonment	Base
7	Indecent assault [Crimes Act s 39]	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment	8 months
8	Indecent assault [Crimes Act s 39]	10 years’ imprisonment	9 months’ imprisonment	-
Total Effective Sentence:		8 years 6 months’ imprisonment.
Non-Parole Period fixed:		4 years and 6 months.
Pre-Sentence detention:		35 days
Other orders:		Reporting for 15 years pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004

The applicant now applies for leave to appeal against this sentence. He relies upon a single ground of appeal, as follows:
The individual sentences, orders for cumulation, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adam Wright (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Adam Wright (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen [2022] VSCA 137
Case: [2022] VSCA 137
Decision Date: 13 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Adam Wright, who appealed against his sentence for multiple charges of indecent assault and attempted incest committed against his daughter over a significant period. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Wright was sentenced to a total effective term of eight years and six months, which he considered manifestly excessive. He argued that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider his age, good character, prospects of rehabilitation, and the principle of totality in determining his sentence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to certain mitigating factors. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the delay between the offending and the sentence, the principle of totality, and Wright’s age and prospects for rehabilitation were adequately considered. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the sentence was within the appropriate range for the crimes committed.

The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the high moral culpability of the crimes. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the delay between the offending and the sentence, as well as the principle of totality. The court found no error in the weight given to mitigating factors such as Wright’s age and good character, and concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the crimes committed. As a result, the High Court refused Wright leave to appeal.

Orders