R -v- LEGGETT [2000] WASCA 327
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 327 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:115/2000 | 7 SEPTEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J IPP J WHEELER J | 3/11/00 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Crown appeal against sentence allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN ALLAN ANTHONY LEGGETT |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentence Crown appeal Carnal knowledge Indecent dealing Inciting indecent dealing Child under 13 years Whether total effective sentence manifestly inadequate Principle of general deterrence Mitigating and aggravating factors Whether delay between commission of offences and complaint to police is a mitigating factor Concurrent and cumulative terms |
Legislation: | Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 185, s 189 as they applied in 1981-1983 |
Case References: | Brockman v The Queen unreported CCA SCt of WA Lib No 970044; 4 February 1997 Duncan v The Queen (1982) 9 A Crim R 354 Fraser v The Queen unreported CCA SCt of WA Lib No 8530; 10 October 1990 Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665 R v Clark [2000] WASCA 229 R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273 Steuart v The Queen, unreported CCA SCt of WA, Library 950486, 15 September 95 Stretton v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995 The Queen v Law [1995] QCA 444 Woods v The Queen (1995) 14 WAR 341 "F" v The Queen (1998) 101 A Crim R 578 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- LEGGETT [2000] WASCA 327 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- IPP J
WHEELER J
- Appellant
AND
ALLAN ANTHONY LEGGETT
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentence - Crown appeal - Carnal knowledge - Indecent dealing - Inciting indecent dealing - Child under 13 years - Whether total effective sentence manifestly inadequate - Principle of general deterrence - Mitigating and aggravating factors - Whether delay between commission of offences and complaint to police is a mitigating factor - Concurrent and cumulative terms
Legislation:
Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 185, s 189 as they applied in 1981-1983
Result:
Crown appeal against sentence allowed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC
Respondent : Mr M R Gunning
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Mark Gunning
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Brockman v The Queen unreported CCA SCt of WA Lib No 970044; 4 February 1997
Duncan v The Queen (1982) 9 A Crim R 354
Fraser v The Queen unreported CCA SCt of WA Lib No 8530; 10 October 1990
Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Clark [2000] WASCA 229
R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404
Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273
Steuart v The Queen, unreported CCA SCt of WA, Library 950486,…
Continue reading R v Leggett
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Leggett [2000] WASCA 327
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 327
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Leggett involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence handed down to the respondent, Leggett, who had been convicted of carnal knowledge, indecent dealing, and inciting indecent dealing of a child under 13 years of age. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Crown argued that the total effective sentence imposed on Leggett was manifestly inadequate, particularly in light of the principles of general deterrence and the need to consider both mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing.
The legal issues before the court centred on whether the delay between the commission of the offences and the complaint to the police constituted a mitigating factor in sentencing, and whether the concurrent and cumulative terms imposed on Leggett adequately reflected the seriousness of his crimes. The Crown submitted that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences or serve as a sufficient deterrent to others who might contemplate similar actions. The court was required to weigh these arguments against the mitigating factors presented by the defence.
In its judgment, the court found that the delay in reporting the offences did not constitute a mitigating factor. It noted that the delay in reporting did not impact on the severity or nature of the offences themselves, nor did it affect the impact on the victim. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offences and the need to uphold the principles of general deterrence. The court also considered the concurrent and cumulative nature of the sentences, determining that they did not adequately reflect the totality of Leggett's offending. As a result, the Crown's appeal against the sentence was allowed.
The final orders of the court were that the Crown's appeal against the sentence was allowed, and a new sentence was to be imposed on Leggett. The specifics of the new sentence were not detailed in the judgment provided.
The legal issues before the court centred on whether the delay between the commission of the offences and the complaint to the police constituted a mitigating factor in sentencing, and whether the concurrent and cumulative terms imposed on Leggett adequately reflected the seriousness of his crimes. The Crown submitted that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences or serve as a sufficient deterrent to others who might contemplate similar actions. The court was required to weigh these arguments against the mitigating factors presented by the defence.
In its judgment, the court found that the delay in reporting the offences did not constitute a mitigating factor. It noted that the delay in reporting did not impact on the severity or nature of the offences themselves, nor did it affect the impact on the victim. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offences and the need to uphold the principles of general deterrence. The court also considered the concurrent and cumulative nature of the sentences, determining that they did not adequately reflect the totality of Leggett's offending. As a result, the Crown's appeal against the sentence was allowed.
The final orders of the court were that the Crown's appeal against the sentence was allowed, and a new sentence was to be imposed on Leggett. The specifics of the new sentence were not detailed in the judgment provided.
Orders
Orders of the court
Crown appeal against sentence allowed
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.