R -v- MELVILLE [2003] WASCA 124
| (2003) 27 WAR 224 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 124 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:236/2002 | 14 MARCH 2003 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J ANDERSON J MCKECHNIE J | 13/06/03 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Question reserved answered | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN VICTOR IAN MELVILLE |
Catchwords: | Courts and Judges Jurisdiction of District Court Criminal law and procedure Maximum sentence for rape life imprisonment Whether Sentencing Act has altered sentence to the same sentence as sexual penetration without consent Statutory interpretation Intention of Parliament |
Legislation: | Acts Amendment (Sexual Assaults) Act 1985 Acts Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 1992 Criminal Code (WA), s 2, s 11, s 12, s 13, s 14, s 23, s 325, s 326, s 596 Criminal Procedure Rules 2000 District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 42, s 49 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 37 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 10 |
Case References: | BRK & Ors v The Queen [2001] WASCA 161 Miller v Raye, unreported, SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 970688; 2 December 1997 Regina v Joseph Lines (1844) 1 Car&K 393; 174 ER 861 Richardson v Brennan [1966] WAR 159 Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co (a firm) [1980] AC 198 Steavenson v Oliver (1841) 8 M&W 234; 10 LJ Ex 338. Wagenaar v The Queen [2000] WASCA 325 Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100 Miller v The Queen (1995) 13 WAR 504 Palmer v Clarke (1989) 19 NSWLR 158 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- MELVILLE [2003] WASCA 124 CORAM : MURRAY J
- ANDERSON J
MCKECHNIE J
- Appellant
AND
VICTOR IAN MELVILLE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Courts and Judges - Jurisdiction of District Court - Criminal law and procedure - Maximum sentence for rape life imprisonment - Whether Sentencing Act has altered sentence to the same sentence as sexual penetration without consent - Statutory interpretation - Intention of Parliament
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Acts Amendment (Sexual Assaults) Act 1985
Acts Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 1992
Criminal Code (WA), s 2, s 11, s 12, s 13, s 14, s 23, s 325, s 326, s 596
Criminal Procedure Rules 2000
District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 42, s 49
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 37
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 10
Result:
Question reserved answered
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr K P Bates & Ms A D Kurtze
Respondent : Mr N J Mullany
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Cannon Bowden & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
BRK & Ors v The Queen [2001]…
Continue reading R v Melville
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Melville [2003] WASCA 124
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Melville was heard by the District Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Melville, was convicted of the crime of rape and faced a potential sentence of life imprisonment. The appeal against the sentence arose from the defendant's argument that the maximum penalty for the crime of rape had been altered by the Sentencing Act, and should therefore be considered the same as the penalty for sexual penetration without consent.
The legal issue before the court was whether the maximum penalty for the offence of rape had been effectively reduced by the Sentencing Act, and if so, whether this meant that the maximum penalty for rape should now align with that for sexual penetration without consent. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and the intention of Parliament in enacting the Sentencing Act.
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the legislative history of the Sentencing Act, concluding that the maximum penalty for rape remained at life imprisonment. The court found that the intention of Parliament was to maintain the maximum penalty for rape at life imprisonment, and that the Sentencing Act did not alter this. Consequently, the court held that the maximum penalty for rape remained at life imprisonment, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
The court reserved the question of whether the defendant should be eligible for parole after a certain period of imprisonment, pending further consideration. The court did not make any final orders in relation to the defendant's sentence at this stage, but the matter was to be determined in due course.
The legal issue before the court was whether the maximum penalty for the offence of rape had been effectively reduced by the Sentencing Act, and if so, whether this meant that the maximum penalty for rape should now align with that for sexual penetration without consent. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and the intention of Parliament in enacting the Sentencing Act.
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the legislative history of the Sentencing Act, concluding that the maximum penalty for rape remained at life imprisonment. The court found that the intention of Parliament was to maintain the maximum penalty for rape at life imprisonment, and that the Sentencing Act did not alter this. Consequently, the court held that the maximum penalty for rape remained at life imprisonment, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
The court reserved the question of whether the defendant should be eligible for parole after a certain period of imprisonment, pending further consideration. The court did not make any final orders in relation to the defendant's sentence at this stage, but the matter was to be determined in due course.
Orders
Orders of the court
Question reserved answered
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.