PLAYLE -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 86
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 86 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:203/2003 | 6 APRIL 2004 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J WHEELER J MILLER J | 30/04/04 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ERNEST JAMES PLAYLE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Six counts of sexual penetration of a de facto child Nine counts of indecent dealing with a de facto child 15 offences involving conduct on eight separate occasions Offences committed in company with applicant's de facto wife Whether sentence of 10 years' imprisonment excessive |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | "B" v The Queen [2002] WASCA 236 Bensegger v R [1979] WAR 65 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 Cameron v The Queen [2002] WASCA 81 Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996 Jarvis v R (1993) 20 WAR 201 Woods v R (1994) 14 WAR 341 Bishop v The Queen [2003] WASCA 79 Boudville v The Queen [2001] WASCA 133 Broome v The Queen [1999] WASCA 202 Carter v The Queen [2003] WASCA 159 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Fullgrabe v The Queen [2002] WASCA 58 LSC v The Queen [2003] WASCA 303 Merino v The Queen [2003] WASCA 18 Morley v The Queen [2001] WASCA 49 R v Breuer & Chaney (1986) 32 A Crim R 1 R v Chilvers [2003] WASCA 87 R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 R v Wong, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980218; 2 April 1998 Trescuri v The Queen [1999] WASCA 172 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : PLAYLE -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 86 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- WHEELER J
MILLER J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : VIOL DCJ
File No : IND 665 of 2003
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Six counts of sexual penetration of a de facto child - Nine counts of indecent dealing with a de facto child - 15 offences involving conduct on eight separate occasions - Offences committed in company with
(Page 2)
applicant's de facto wife - Whether sentence of 10 years' imprisonment excessive
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M R Gunning
Respondent : Mr D Dempster
Solicitors:
Applicant : Gunning Young
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
"B" v The Queen [2002] WASCA 236
Bensegger v R [1979] WAR 65
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Cameron v The Queen [2002] WASCA 81
Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February…
Continue reading Playle v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Playle v The Queen [2004] WASCA 86
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 86
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Playle v The Queen, the applicant, Mr Playle, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for multiple offences of sexual penetration and indecent dealing with a de facto child. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The offences were committed in the company of the applicant's de facto wife, and the court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed, being 10 years' imprisonment, was excessive.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate or excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court was required to weigh the gravity of the offences against the sentence imposed, considering the principles of sentencing and the relevant precedents.
The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted the severity of the offences, which involved repeated and serious abuse of a child over a number of years. The court also considered the need for general deterrence, the need to reflect community standards, and the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the crimes committed.
No further orders were made by the court. Leave to appeal was refused.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate or excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court was required to weigh the gravity of the offences against the sentence imposed, considering the principles of sentencing and the relevant precedents.
The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted the severity of the offences, which involved repeated and serious abuse of a child over a number of years. The court also considered the need for general deterrence, the need to reflect community standards, and the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the crimes committed.
No further orders were made by the court. Leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
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.