BOSWORTH -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 43
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 43 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:79/2003 | 11 NOVEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ SCOTT J MCKECHNIE J | 15/03/04 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PAUL JAMES BOSWORTH THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Sexual offences involving children Principles applicable |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 183, s 197 |
Case References: | Bell v The Queen [2001] WASCA 40 Boudville v The Queen [2001] WASCA 133 Broome v The Queen [1999] WASCA 202 Chinnery v The Queen [2000] WASCA 295 Dauphin v The Queen [2002] WASCA 104 Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Morley v The Queen [2001] WASCA 49 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 Podirsky v The Queen (1990) 3 WAR 128 R H McL v The Queen [2000] HCA 46 R v Chilvers [2003] WASCA 87 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Hough [2002] WASCA 42 R v Petchell, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930346; 16 June 1993 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 Squance v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8276; 31 May 1990 Trescuri v The Queen [1999] WASCA 172 Woods v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 341 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BOSWORTH -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 43 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- SCOTT J
MCKECHNIE J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Sexual offences involving children - Principles applicable
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 183, s 197
Result:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M J Bowden
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Mr D N Ryan
Solicitors:
Applicant : Cannon Bowden & Co
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bell v The Queen [2001] WASCA 40
Boudville v The Queen [2001] WASCA 133
Broome v The Queen [1999] WASCA 202
Chinnery v The Queen [2000] WASCA 295
Dauphin v The Queen [2002] WASCA 104
Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Morley v The Queen [2001] WASCA 49
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Podirsky v The Queen (1990) 3 WAR 128
R H McL v The Queen…
Continue reading Bosworth v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bosworth v The Queen [2004] WASCA 43
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 43
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court was an application for leave to appeal a sentence imposed on the respondent, Bosworth, following a conviction for sexual offences involving children. The application was brought before the High Court of Australia. Bosworth had been convicted of multiple counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 and had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the sentence, Bosworth sought leave to appeal to the High Court on the basis that the primary judge had erred in the application of sentencing principles.
The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge had misapplied the principles of sentencing relevant to sexual offences involving children, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court considered the sentencing principles outlined in relevant case law, particularly focusing on the need to ensure that sentences for such serious offences reflect their gravity and that they are proportionate to the circumstances of the offender and the offence. The court also examined whether the primary judge had adequately considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in Bosworth's case.
The court held that the primary judge had properly applied the relevant sentencing principles and that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The court found that the primary judge had appropriately balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the need to consider Bosworth's personal circumstances, including his otherwise good character and his expressed remorse. The court was satisfied that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and was proportionate to Bosworth's culpability. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge had misapplied the principles of sentencing relevant to sexual offences involving children, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court considered the sentencing principles outlined in relevant case law, particularly focusing on the need to ensure that sentences for such serious offences reflect their gravity and that they are proportionate to the circumstances of the offender and the offence. The court also examined whether the primary judge had adequately considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in Bosworth's case.
The court held that the primary judge had properly applied the relevant sentencing principles and that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The court found that the primary judge had appropriately balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the need to consider Bosworth's personal circumstances, including his otherwise good character and his expressed remorse. The court was satisfied that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and was proportionate to Bosworth's culpability. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
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.