Do v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, Do, was found guilty following a trial of sexually penetrating four children under the age of 13, engaging in indecent dealings with 16 children under the age of 13, and indecently recording four children under the age of 13. The victims were students at the school where the appellant acted as a parent-helper, with their ages ranging from 6 to 12 years. Additionally, the appellant was found guilty of two counts of indecent dealing with a child who was a friend of one of his victims. The appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, which he appealed. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was excessive or manifestly inadequate, and whether the primary judge misdirected themselves in relation to the seriousness of the offences.

In reviewing the sentence, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's background, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offending. The court noted that the appellant's offending was of a very serious nature, involving the abuse of children who were in a position of trust and vulnerability. The court also considered that the appellant had a previous criminal history and had shown little remorse for his actions. However, the court found that the total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment was excessive, given the appellant's age and health, and the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the offending. The court also found that the primary judge had not adequately considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation, which was a relevant factor in determining the appropriate sentence.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. The court imposed a total effective sentence of 8 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years. The court considered that this sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending, while also taking into account the appellant's age and health, and his prospects of rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence would provide adequate deterrence and denunciation, and would not be inconsistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.