R v Clark

Case [2000] WASCA 229

R -v- CLARK [2000] WASCA 229



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2000] WASCA 229
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:27/20003 MAY 2000
Coram:KENNEDY J
PIDGEON J
WHEELER J		28/08/00
6Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
PDF Version
Parties:THE QUEEN
BRADLEY CLARK

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Sentence
Crown appeal
Aggravated sexual assault
Whether sentence manifestly inadequate
Principles
Sentence of 3 years 8 months upheld
Mitigating and aggravating factors

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404
R v Ginder (1987) 23 A Crim R 1
R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- CLARK [2000] WASCA 229 CORAM : KENNEDY J
    PIDGEON J
    WHEELER J
HEARD : 3 MAY 2000 DELIVERED : 28 AUGUST 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 27 of 2000 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
    Appellant

    AND

    BRADLEY CLARK
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Crown appeal - Aggravated sexual assault - Whether sentence manifestly inadequate - Principles - Sentence of 3 years 8 months upheld - Mitigating and aggravating factors




Legislation:

Nil




Result:

Appeal dismissed




(Page 2)

Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr D Dempster
    Respondent : Mr R G W Bayly & Mr G P O'Brien


Solicitors:

    Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
    Respondent : Bayly & O'Brien


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

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404

Case(s) also cited:



R v Ginder (1987) 23 A Crim R 1
R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Wheeler J, with which I entirely agree. Having regard also to the principles summarised by the High Court in Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665, at 671 - 672, in my opinion, this appeal should be dismissed.

2 PIDGEON J: I agree with the reasons to be published by Wheeler J.

3 WHEELER J: On 17 December 1999 the respondent was found guilty after trial and convicted of one count of aggravated sexual penetration without consent, the circumstance of aggravation being that the complainant was between the ages of 13 and 16 years. On 31 January 2000 he was sentenced to 3 years and 8 months' imprisonment with an order for parole eligibility. The Crown appeals against that sentence.

4 Briefly, the relevant facts are as follows. In April 1998 the complainant, who was then some few days short of her 15th birthday, attended a family celebration at a local hotel. She drank spirits and beer at the hotel and consumed more alcohol thereafter at the family farmhouse where celebrations…

Continue reading R v Clark

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Clark [2000] WASCA 229
Case
[2000] WASCA 229
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Clark involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Clark, who had been convicted of aggravated sexual assault. The trial judge had sentenced Clark to a term of imprisonment of three years and eight months, which the Crown deemed manifestly inadequate. The matter was brought before the court for determination of the appropriate sentence.

The court was tasked with assessing whether the sentence of three years and eight months was manifestly inadequate, considering both the mitigating and aggravating factors present in the case. The Crown argued that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the offence, while Clark's legal representatives contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court needed to weigh the mitigating factors, such as Clark's otherwise good character and the circumstances of the offence, against the aggravating factors, including the severity and nature of the assault.

The court determined that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly inadequate. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offence and provide just punishment. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors and had exercised judicial discretion in arriving at the sentence. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.