KING -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 103

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 103
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:88/2000	Heard:	21 MARCH 2001
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	21/03/01
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	ALLEN MICHAEL KING THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Sexual offences Eight counts of indecent dealing with a lineal relative One count of digital sexual penetration One count of penile sexual penetration One count of threatening to kill Conviction after trial No remorse Neither individual sentences or total sentence of 10 years with eligibility for parole manifestly excessive
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Lowndes v R (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Jarvis v R (1993) 20 WAR 201

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KING -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 103 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

MURRAY J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 21 MARCH 2001 DELIVERED : 21 MARCH 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 88 of 2000 BETWEEN : ALLEN MICHAEL KING

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Sexual offences - Eight counts of indecent dealing with a lineal relative - One count of digital sexual penetration - One count of penile sexual penetration - One count of threatening to kill - Conviction after trial - No remorse - Neither individual sentences or total sentence of 10 years with eligibility for parole manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr K P Bates

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Lowndes v R (1999) 73 ALJR 1007

Case(s) also cited:

R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
Jarvis v R (1993) 20 WAR 201

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. On 24 March 2000 the applicant was convicted in the District Court after trial of eight counts of indecently dealing with a lineal relative, being a child under the age of 16 years, two counts of sexual penetrating a lineal relative, being a child under the age of 16 years, one which involved digital penetration and one which involved penile penetration of the vagina, and one count of threatening to kill.

2 On 7 April 2000 the applicant was sentenced as follows: with respect to the offence the subject of count 3 on the indictment, indecent dealing with a lineal relative, the sentence imposed was 1 year. In respect of the offence the subject of count 4 on the indictment, indecent dealing with a lineal relative, the sentence imposed was 18 months. Those two offences comprised a single incident.

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 King v The Queen

Details

AGLC: King v The Queen [2001] WASCA 103
Case: [2001] WASCA 103
Decision Date: 21 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court, the respondent sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence. The respondent was convicted of eight counts of indecent dealing with a lineal relative, one count of digital sexual penetration, one count of penile sexual penetration, and one count of threatening to kill. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after 7 years, and dismissed the respondent's appeal against both the conviction and sentence. The main issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against sentence by failing to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court noted that the Court of Appeal had rejected the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the respondent's offending and the need for general deterrence. The Court held that the Court of Appeal had given appropriate consideration to the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, the nature and circumstances of the offending, and the need for general deterrence. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had not erred in dismissing the appeal against sentence, as the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court also noted that the respondent had shown no remorse for his offending and that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences committed. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to 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.