R v GWM

The case of R v GWM was an appeal brought by the Crown against the sentence given to the respondent, GWM, who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault on an 11-year old girl. The offender was the 27-year-old uncle of the victim and committed the assault while intoxicated. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appeal was heard by Hamill JA, Hulme and Hamill JJ.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was an error in the assessment of the objective gravity of the crime, the approach to the issue of voluntary or self-induced intoxication on sentence, whether there was an error in determining the non-parole period, and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court also needed to consider the relevance of voluntary or self-induced intoxication to the sentence for sexual assault and other crimes of violence, the approach to the submission that the conduct was out of character, and the relevance of "special circumstances" to the sentence.

The court found that there were patent and latent errors in the original sentence. The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate because the primary judge had failed to adequately consider the gravity of the offence and the offender's intoxication at the time of the offence. The court also held that the non-parole period was too short and that the primary judge had not properly considered the relevance of the offender's intoxication on sentence. The court found that the combination of factors established a manifest inadequacy in the sentence. The respondent was resentenced by the court to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period that reflected the objective gravity of the crime and the need for general deterrence.