LITTLE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 87
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 87 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:197/1999 | 11 FEBRUARY 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 6/04/00 | |
| 8 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THOMAS RANJOL LITTLE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Three counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13 Digital penetration Complainant six years of age Applicant aged 39 and the brother-in-law of the complainant's father Breach of trust Offences all committed on same day Sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment Sentence reduced to 4 years' imprisonment |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996 Hart v Rankin [1979] WAR 144 Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383 Holland v The Queen [1999] WASCA 43 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Johnston v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960153; 22 March 1996 Keding v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940522; 22 September 1994 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Powell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8928; 21 June 1991 R v Boyd [1984] WAR 236 R v Burns (1994) 71 A Crim R 450 R v Dick (1994) 75 A Crim R 303 R v Dinsdale, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990021; 2 February 1999 R v Everett (1994) 73 A Crim R 550 R v Ginder (1987) 23 A Crim R 1 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Juli (1990) 50 A Crim R 31 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v O'C (1989) 41 A Crim R 360 R v Olbrich (1999) 73 ALJR 1550 R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 R v Price (1988) 33 A Crim R 359 R v Rogers (1989) 44 A Crim R 301 R v Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 R v Sweetlove, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960555; 23 September 1996 R v Van Roosmalen (1989) 43 A Crim R 358 R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Sell v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 240 Sice v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940134; 11 March 1994 Steuart v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950486; 15 September 1995 Tampalini v O'Brien (1993) 114 FLR 281 Trescuri v R [1999] WASCA 172 Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467 Wood v Samuels (1974) 8 SASR 465 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : LITTLE…
Continue reading Little v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Little v The Queen [2000] WASCA 87
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 87
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Little v The Queen is a criminal case involving the applicant, Little, who was convicted on three counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13. The complainant was six years old at the time of the offences, and Little was 39 years old at the time of sentencing. Little was the brother-in-law of the complainant's father, and the offences all occurred on the same day. The applicant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, but now seeks to appeal against the sentence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues in this case centred around the sentencing of Little. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the breach of trust involved, and the appropriate punishment for the crimes. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence was excessive in light of the circumstances of the case.
The court found that the sentence was indeed excessive and disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court found that the sentence should take into account the breach of trust involved, as Little was the brother-in-law of the complainant's father. The court also found that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences, but that the six-year sentence was too severe. The court found that a sentence of four years' imprisonment was more appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the case.
The High Court of Australia granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to four years' imprisonment. The court found that the original sentence was too severe and that a reduced sentence was more appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case. The court did not make any further orders in the case.
The legal issues in this case centred around the sentencing of Little. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the breach of trust involved, and the appropriate punishment for the crimes. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence was excessive in light of the circumstances of the case.
The court found that the sentence was indeed excessive and disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court found that the sentence should take into account the breach of trust involved, as Little was the brother-in-law of the complainant's father. The court also found that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences, but that the six-year sentence was too severe. The court found that a sentence of four years' imprisonment was more appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the case.
The High Court of Australia granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to four years' imprisonment. The court found that the original sentence was too severe and that a reduced sentence was more appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case. The court did not make any further orders in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
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.