JAMES -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 100
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 100 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:136/1999 | 1 FEBRUARY 2000 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 12/04/00 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | IAN GEORGE JAMES THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against convictions Indecent dealing with young child many years before trial Content of Longman warning discussed Content of warning about delay in making complaint discussed Duty of trial Judge to comment on facts and cases of parties discussed Sentencing Multiple indecent dealings with young child by older, trusted friend of family Offender otherwise of good character No previous convictions Aggregate term of imprisonment for 7 years, upheld Sentence structure and sentencing process discussed |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Adlem v The Queen (1999) 20 WAR 419 Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315 Cooksley [1982] Qd R 405 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 H (1980) 3 A Crim R 53 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 164 ALR 465 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Poole (1999) 106 A Crim R 459 R v Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362 R v Pinder (1992) 8 WAR 19 RPS v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 449 Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467 W (A Child) v The Queen [1999] WASCA 235 Britten v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940079; 21 February 1994 De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996 Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996 Eastough v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980108; 12 March 1998 Fitzgerald v Penn (1995) 91 CLR 268 Hayesdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1997) 98 A Crim R 435 Johnston v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960153; 22 March 1996 Kahatapitye v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980232; 1 May 1998 M v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980452; 12 August 1999 Miller v The Queen (1995) 13 WAR 504 Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Parsons v The Queen (1993) 66 A Crim R 550 Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 R v Attfield (1961) 45 Cr App R 309 R v Badjan (1996) 50 Cr App R 141 R v Campbell [1933] QSR 123 R v Carbone (No 2) (1976) 14 SASR 280 R v Cohen and Bateman (1909) 2 Cr App R 197 R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 R v Lippiatt, unreported; CCA SCt of… |
Continue reading James v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- James v The Queen [2000] WASCA 100
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 100
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of James v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of indecent dealings with a young child, which occurred many years prior to the trial. The matter was brought before the court on appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The appellant, a man of previously good character with no prior convictions, was found guilty of abusing his position of trust within the family to commit these offences against a young child over a period of time.
The primary legal issues addressed by the court were the adequacy of the Longman warning, which pertains to the potential unreliability of the complainant's evidence due to the passage of time, and the trial judge's duty to comment on the facts and cases of the parties. Additionally, the court examined the aggregate term of imprisonment imposed on the appellant, which was seven years, to determine if it was appropriate and whether the sentence structure and process adhered to legal standards.
The court found that the trial judge adequately provided the Longman warning and appropriately commented on the facts and cases of the parties. It was determined that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, taking into account the nature of the offences, the appellant's otherwise good character, and the absence of previous convictions. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
The primary legal issues addressed by the court were the adequacy of the Longman warning, which pertains to the potential unreliability of the complainant's evidence due to the passage of time, and the trial judge's duty to comment on the facts and cases of the parties. Additionally, the court examined the aggregate term of imprisonment imposed on the appellant, which was seven years, to determine if it was appropriate and whether the sentence structure and process adhered to legal standards.
The court found that the trial judge adequately provided the Longman warning and appropriately commented on the facts and cases of the parties. It was determined that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, taking into account the nature of the offences, the appellant's otherwise good character, and the absence of previous convictions. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
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.