Bropho v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

Bropho, the appellant, challenged his conviction and sentence for five counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under the age of 13 years. The case was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, Western Australia, which was required to decide several legal issues. The court had to consider whether the trial judge was correct in not admitting DNA paternity evidence, whether the trial judge adequately considered the expert evidence presented, and whether the trial judge provided sufficient reasons for the judgment. Additionally, the court had to assess if the trial judge adequately dealt with the evidence of the expert called by the appellant. Finally, the court had to determine whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred and if the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the trial judge was correct in excluding the DNA evidence as it was not relevant to the charges. The court also found that the trial judge adequately considered the expert evidence and provided sufficient reasons for the judgment. The trial judge had properly weighed the evidence of the expert called by the appellant and had not erred in his assessment. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. However, the court did find that the aggregate sentence of three years' imprisonment was too lenient given the nature of the offences and the age and health of the victim. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the sentence was increased to six years' imprisonment.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence. The sentence was increased from three years' imprisonment to six years' imprisonment, with all sentences ordered to be served concurrently. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered all the evidence and had not erred in his assessment of the case. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was too lenient and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court noted that the victim was a young child, and the offences were of a serious nature. The court also noted that the appellant's age and health did not justify a concurrent sentence. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the sentence was increased to six years' imprisonment.