"D" -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 137

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 137
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:18/2000	Heard:	1 MAY 2000
Coram:	PIDGEON J WALLWORK J MILLER J	Delivered:	22/05/00
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	"D" THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Appeal Sexual offences "Tariff" 5 years' imprisonment for multiple offences against three different complainants Nothing excessive in sentence Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 328, s 329(4)
Case References:	De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996 Dempsey v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996 Hinkley, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7746; 21 July 1989 Jarvis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930341; 14 June 1993 Price v The Queen (1988) 33 A Crim R 359 R v Dickson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990203; 23 April 1999 R v Ginder (1987) 23 A Crim R 1 R v Lippiatt, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980065; 17 February 1998 R v Petchell, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930346; 16 June 1993 R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 Squance v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8276; 31 May 1990 Sullivan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8626; 11 December 1990 Trescuri v R [1999] WASCA 172 Woods v R (1994) 14 WAR 341 Podirsky v R (1990) 3 WAR 128 R v Dunstan, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990074; 19 February 1999 R v Fancourt, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8319; 18 June 1990 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Wozencroft, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6606; 25 February 1987 Smith v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940285; 2 May 1994

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : "D" -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 137 CORAM : PIDGEON J

WALLWORK J

MILLER J

HEARD : 1 MAY 2000 DELIVERED : 22 MAY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 18 of 2000 BETWEEN : "D"

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Appeal - Sexual offences - "Tariff" - 5 years' imprisonment for multiple offences against three different complainants - Nothing excessive in sentence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 328, s 329(4)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P G Giudice

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Appellant : George Giudice Law Chambers

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996
Dempsey v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996
Hinkley,…

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 D v The Queen

Details

AGLC: D v The Queen [2000] WASCA 137
Case: [2000] WASCA 137
Decision Date: 22 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against three different complainants and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The decision was appealed on the basis that the sentence was excessive, considering the nature of the offences and the appellant's personal circumstances. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue in this case was whether the sentence of five years' imprisonment was excessive when considering the specific facts of the case, including the nature of the offences and the appellant's personal circumstances.

The High Court examined the sentence imposed in light of the principles governing the imposition of sentences for sexual offences. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the number of complainants, and the appellant's criminal history. The Court found that the sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the crimes committed. The Court emphasised that the determination of an appropriate sentence must be based on the facts of each individual case, and in this instance, the sentence was deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The Court also noted that the appellant had no prior convictions, which influenced the overall assessment of the sentence.

Having reviewed the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing, the High Court concluded that the sentence of five years' imprisonment was appropriate and not excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The court's decision reinforces the importance of considering the specific facts of each case when determining an appropriate sentence for sexual offences. The final orders of the Court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of five years' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.