Jyl v The State of Western Australia

Jyl was charged with 14 counts of historical sexual offences against his sister and daughter, occurring between 1972 and 1991 when the victims were between 10 and 15 years of age. The appellant was convicted of all 14 charges after trial and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 14 years imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal against his convictions and the total effective sentence.

There were four grounds of appeal against conviction. Three of the grounds impugned the manner in which the trial judge summarised the evidence and the defence case to the jury. The fourth ground alleged that the trial judge erred by excluding evidence that the complainant had a motive to lie about the allegations of sexual offending that she had made against the appellant. The Court found that the trial judge's remarks did not give rise to any miscarriage of justice. In regard to the fourth ground, the evidence sought to be adduced was not evidence of motive, was only relevant to the credibility of the complainant, did not fall within any exception to the collateral evidence rule and was properly excluded by the trial judge.

There were two grounds of appeal against sentence. The first ground alleged that the trial judge erred by taking into account evidence of an alleged admission by the appellant in 1992 which had been excluded as evidence at the trial. The second ground relied on both limbs of the totality principle to assert that the total effective sentence of 14 years was disproportionate to the total offending and crushing in its effect. The Court found that the first ground of appeal was without merit because the admission was not material to the findings made by the sentencing judge. As to the second ground, the total sentence could be viewed as being towards the higher end of the appropriate range but having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the length of time over which the offending continued, the fact that there were two victims and the vulnerability of those victims, the sentence was proportionate to the total offending and, notwithstanding the age of the appellant at the time of sentencing, does not justify reduction due to any crushing effect.

Leave to appeal against conviction was refused and the appeal against conviction was dismissed. Leave to appeal on ground 1 of the appeal against sentence was refused and leave to appeal on ground 2 of the appeal against sentence was granted. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.