R v Fisher - [2001] VSCA 164

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 153 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
ALFRED WILLIAM FISHER

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., ORMISTON and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 September 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 September 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 164

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - Facts affecting appellant and wife warranting compassion in the sentencing process - Balance of term of imprisonment imposed suspended.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D.G. Just	Ms K.Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr G.J. Lyon	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

This appeal by Alfred William Fisher comes before this Court pursuant to leave which was granted last Friday.

On 13 June 2001 the appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to a presentment containing six counts: one of gross indecency, one of indecent assault and four of indecent acts of, with and upon a girl under the age of 16 years, who was or became his stepdaughter. The act of gross indecency involved the girl kissing the appellant's penis, the indecent assault involved the touching of the girl's vagina, and the four indecent acts appear to have involved either the girl or the girl and the appellant lying naked on the appellant's bed.

The offences are old, in the sense that the first of them occurred over 13 years ago and the last some eight years ago. The offences came to the notice of police not through any complaint made by the girl but through adventitious circumstances. The judge sentenced the appellant, who was of otherwise good character, to sentences of 12 months on count 1 and six months on counts 2 to 6 inclusive. She accumulated six months of the sentences imposed on counts 2 and 3 and three months of the sentences imposed on counts 4, 5 and 6 upon each other and upon the sentence of twelve months imposed on count 1. The total effective sentence was therefore one of two years and nine months and the judge fixed a non-parole period of 12 months.

The appeal which comes before this Court is supported by nine grounds, the last eight of which are really particulars of ground 1, namely, that the sentences imposed are manifestly excessive. However, Mr Just, on behalf of the respondent, has pointed out to us that in respect of count 1 (the gross indecency charge) the judge appears to have sentenced the appellant on a view of the facts inconsistent with the charge alleged in count 1. In essence it is said that the judge treated the offence as a sexual penetration rather than a gross indecency in the presence of the victim, which was the offence with which the appellant had been charged. It is further said that her Honour also sentenced on this count on the basis that the maximum penalty was two years, when in fact it was three years. However, if that is error, it is one made in favour of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Fisher and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] VSCA 164
Decision Date: 19 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of R v Fisher, the appellant was sentenced by the County Court of Victoria for a series of drug-related offences. The primary dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, given the specific circumstances surrounding the appellant and his wife, who was also involved in the criminal activity. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the trial judge, focusing on whether it was proportionate and whether sufficient weight had been given to the personal circumstances of the appellant and his wife.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the severity of the appellant's criminal conduct against the personal circumstances that warranted compassion in the sentencing process. Specifically, the court had to determine if the trial judge had erred in not sufficiently considering the appellant's personal background and the impact of the sentence on his wife. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately account for the hardship that would befall his wife, which in turn would affect the appellant's ability to provide for his family.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had indeed failed to adequately balance the personal circumstances of the appellant and his wife with the gravity of the offending. The court emphasised that when personal circumstances significantly affect the appellant and his immediate family, they should be given substantial weight in the sentencing process. The appeal court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered the hardship that would result from the appellant's imprisonment, which included the impact on his wife and children. Consequently, the Court of Appeal varied the sentence by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed to a suspended sentence, reflecting the need for compassion in this particular case.

Orders