LWD v The State of Western Australia

In this matter, the appellant appeals against his conviction on one count relating to his stepdaughter, J, and against his sentence. The appellant was convicted of eight sexual offences against his stepdaughters, P and J, following a trial, and acquitted of a further seven offences. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 13 years' imprisonment. The appeal against the conviction and sentence was filed nearly two years out of time and extensions of time are required. The appellant's solicitor has sworn affidavits seeking to explain the delay. The appellant was 'overwhelmed' at the outcome immediately following the trial and then had mental health issues, though the severity of them fluctuated. There were then further delays in obtaining transcript and the prosecution brief, and in raising funds to cover the legal fees of appeals. The delay is significant and the affidavits explain some, but not all, of that delay.

The appeal raises two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the verdict on one count (relating to J) was inconsistent with the other verdicts. Secondly, whether there was a rational basis for the differing verdicts. The appeal against sentence also raises the issue of whether fresh evidence regarding the appellant's mental health at the time of sentencing should have resulted in a different sentence being imposed. The court assessed the merits of the appeals in determining whether the applications to extend time should be granted.

The court found that the appeal against conviction on the count relating to J had no reasonable prospect of success. The evidence established that the appellant had committed serious sexual offences against his stepdaughters over a number of years. The differing verdicts were rational and the jury was entitled to acquit the appellant of some of the charges. The appeal against sentence was also found to have no reasonable prospect of success. The sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences. The fresh evidence regarding the appellant's mental health did not provide a basis for a different sentence to be imposed. Accordingly, the applications for an extension of time were refused and the appeal was dismissed.