Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :SLEIGHT DCJ
File No :IND 868 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Crown appeal against sentence - Five counts in contravention of s 474.25A(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) - Four counts in contravention of s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) - Error of fact - Error of law - Manifest inadequacy
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(1), s 16A(2), s 17A(1), s 20(1)(b) Criminal Code (Cth), s 474.17(1), s 474.25A(1), s 474.26(1), s 474.27(1) Criminal Code (WA), s 204B(2)
Result:
Extension of time to appeal granted. Leave to appeal refused with respect to grounds 1 to 4. Appeal dismissed
[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.
Continue reading R v Leask
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Leask [2013] WASCA 243
Case
[2013] WASCA 243
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant, Leask, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, which upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. Leask was found guilty of five counts of contravening section 474.25A(1) of the Criminal Code and four counts of contravening section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code. The Crown appealed the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate and whether there was an error of fact or law in the Court of Appeal's decision.
The court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate and that there was an error of fact in the Court of Appeal's decision. The court found that the Court of Appeal had not taken into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal did not reflect the gravity of the offences and that it was insufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing. The court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in failing to consider the need for general deterrence and in not adequately considering the seriousness of the offences.
The court allowed the Crown's appeal and set aside the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal. The matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal for re-sentencing. The court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate and that there was an error of fact in the Court of Appeal's decision. The court found that the Court of Appeal had not adequately considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal did not reflect the gravity of the offences and that it was insufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing.