Legal Research
Cases
Adams v The Queen

Adams v The Queen

Case [2003] WASCA 91 2 May 2003

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: ADAMS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 91

CORAM: SCOTT J
TEMPLEMAN J
HASLUCK J

HEARD: 16 APRIL 2003

DELIVERED : 2 MAY 2003

FILE NO/S: CCA 99 of 2002

BETWEEN: JOANNE FAYE ADAMS
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Convictions for two discrete offences of extortion - Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment in respect of each offence to be served cumulatively - Offender pregnant and with two young children - Deprivation of a child's parental care held to be a factor justifying reduction of the sentence - Sentence reduced to sentence of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months for each offence to be served cumulatively

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 397(1)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 39, s 76(1), s 89(5)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal against sentence allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr J R Noble
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant: Maughan & Leach
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998
Cooper v The Queen [2001] WASCA 379
Cross v Cook [2001] WASCA 242
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Dodd v Hoogewerf [2002] WASCA 15
Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327
Latham v The Queen (2000) 117 A Crim R 74
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Nguyen v The Queen (2001) 160 FLR 284
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Holder and Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
R v Wilhelm (1988) 39 A Crim R 469
Roffey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940601; 2 November 1994

Case(s) also cited:

Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Jeffree, CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980150; 13 February 1998
R v Ruane (1979) 1 A Crim R 284
R v Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343

SCOTT J: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Hasluck J.
I agree with those reasons and with the proposed disposition of the matter.
In my view, it is only the fact that the applicant will be separated from her child when that child turns one year of age that justifies a more lenient sentence than that imposed by the learned sentencing Judge. But for that factor, in my opinion, the sentence imposed by his Honour was entirely appropriate.
If, as the applicant says, she wishes to remain with her child and take custody of her other children, then it will be for her to demonstrate to the Parole Board that she should…

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 Adams v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Adams v The Queen [2003] WASCA 91
Case: [2003] WASCA 91
Decision Date: 2 MAY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Adams, was convicted of two separate instances of extortion and sentenced to a cumulative term of three years' imprisonment. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where Adams sought to challenge the sentence imposed by the lower court. The central issue for the court was whether the original sentence was excessive given the appellant's personal circumstances, specifically her pregnancy and the impact the sentence would have on her two young children. The court had to consider whether the deprivation of the children's parental care constituted a factor that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

In addressing the appeal, the court carefully considered the appellant's personal circumstances and the impact of the proposed sentence on her children. The court recognised that while the crimes of extortion were serious, the appellant's role as a pregnant mother of two young children was a significant mitigating factor. The court determined that the potential deprivation of the children's parental care was a compelling reason to reduce the severity of the sentence. The High Court found that the original sentence did not adequately balance the appellant's culpability with the potential harm to her children, leading to a decision to reduce the sentence.

The High Court subsequently reduced the sentence to a cumulative term of two years and three months for each offence. The court's decision was based on the principle that the interests of justice required a sentence that took into account the appellant's unique personal circumstances. The reduction ensured that the appellant would still serve a significant period of imprisonment for her crimes but would be able to maintain a degree of parental involvement with her children. This outcome reflects the court's commitment to ensuring that sentences are proportionate and take into account the broader social consequences of imprisonment.

Orders