Lepoidevin v State of Western Australia [No 2]

In this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the sentence imposed upon him by the District Court. The appellant, who had pleaded guilty to one count of making a threat with intent to compel a person to do an act they were lawfully entitled to abstain from doing, and two counts of criminal damage, was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 2 years' imprisonment. The appellant advances three grounds of appeal. The first two grounds challenge the sentencing judge's findings that the appellant's psychiatric illness did not cause or contribute to the offending, or reduce the significance of general deterrence. The third ground challenges the sentencing judge's failure to allow the appellant a reasonable opportunity to adduce further evidence in respect of the matters referred to in the first two grounds. None of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of succeeding. In relation to the first two grounds, the sentencing judge was correct to find that the appellant's psychiatric condition was not causative of the offending or that it reduced the significance of general deterrence. In reaching this conclusion, the sentencing judge correctly applied the principles governing the admissibility of expert evidence. The expert evidence presented to the sentencing judge was not sufficient for the judge to make the findings the appellant seeks to challenge. In relation to the third ground, the appellant's contention that his procedural rights were infringed is without merit. The sentencing judge gave the appellant's counsel notice of his concerns about the expert evidence and invited counsel to seek an adjournment to adduce further evidence. The appellant's counsel did not take up this invitation.