AINSWORTH -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 212
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 212 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:49/2000 | 13 JUNE 2001 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J STEYTLER J MILLER J | 25/07/01 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Leave to appeal against sentences granted Appeal allowed Effective head sentence reduced to 4 years | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | STEVEN JOHN AINSWORTH THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sexual penetration without consent Whether mistake should have been left to jury Criticism of direction No miscarriage of justice Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Four counts of sexual penetration Effective head sentence of 5-1/2 years Prisoner already serving sentence of 7-1/2 years for similar offences Totality principle Effective head sentence reduced to 4 years to be served cumulatively on other sentences |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 24 |
Case References: | Jarvis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 201 Miller v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Larsen (1989) 44 A Crim R 121 Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999 BRK v The Queen [2001] WASCA 161 Daniels v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 435 Ferrari v Neenan [2000] WASCA 191 R v Duncan (1983) 47 ALR 746 R v Lyon [2001] WASCA 120 R v Quartermaine [2000] WASCA 341 Re Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1977) [1979] WAR 45 Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : AINSWORTH -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 212 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- STEYTLER J
MILLER J
- CCA 62 of 2000
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sexual penetration without consent - Whether mistake should have been left to jury - Criticism of direction - No miscarriage of justice
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Four counts of sexual penetration - Effective head sentence of 5-1/2 years - Prisoner already serving sentence of 7-1/2 years for similar offences - Totality principle - Effective head sentence reduced to 4 years to be served cumulatively on other sentences
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 24
Result:
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentences granted
Appeal allowed
Effective head sentence reduced to 4 years
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr L M Levy
Respondent : Mr K M Tavener
Solicitors:
Applicant : Laurie Levy
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Jarvis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 201
Miller v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Larsen (1989) 44 A Crim R 121
Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999
Case(s) also cited:
BRK v The Queen [2001] WASCA 161
Daniels v The Queen…
Continue reading Ainsworth v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Ainsworth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 212
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 212
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Ainsworth v The Queen involved the appellant, Ainsworth, who was convicted of four counts of sexual penetration without consent. Ainsworth appealed both his convictions and his sentences, arguing that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the issue of mistake and that the sentences imposed were excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which considered the legal issues regarding the jury's consideration of the appellant's defence of mistake and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in not allowing the jury to consider the appellant's defence of mistake and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the totality principle and the appellant's prior convictions.
The court found that while the trial judge had made an error in the direction to the jury regarding the defence of mistake, it did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial, as the evidence against the appellant was strong. Regarding the sentences, the court noted that the effective head sentence of 5-1/2 years was excessive, particularly given that the appellant was already serving a sentence of 7-1/2 years for similar offences. The court applied the totality principle, which seeks to ensure that the total sentence does not exceed what would be appropriate for the aggregate of the offences, and reduced the effective head sentence to 4 years to be served cumulatively with the other sentences.
The High Court dismissed the appeal against the convictions but allowed the appeal against the sentences. The effective head sentence was reduced to 4 years, which was to be served cumulatively with the appellant's existing sentences. This decision ensures that the total punishment reflects the seriousness of the crimes while adhering to the principles of sentencing and proportionality.
The court found that while the trial judge had made an error in the direction to the jury regarding the defence of mistake, it did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial, as the evidence against the appellant was strong. Regarding the sentences, the court noted that the effective head sentence of 5-1/2 years was excessive, particularly given that the appellant was already serving a sentence of 7-1/2 years for similar offences. The court applied the totality principle, which seeks to ensure that the total sentence does not exceed what would be appropriate for the aggregate of the offences, and reduced the effective head sentence to 4 years to be served cumulatively with the other sentences.
The High Court dismissed the appeal against the convictions but allowed the appeal against the sentences. The effective head sentence was reduced to 4 years, which was to be served cumulatively with the appellant's existing sentences. This decision ensures that the total punishment reflects the seriousness of the crimes while adhering to the principles of sentencing and proportionality.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentences granted
Appeal allowed
Effective head sentence reduced to 4 years
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.