R -v- QUARTERMAINE [2000] WASCA 341
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 341 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:34/2000 | 8 MAY 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J WALLWORK J WHEELER J | 8/11/00 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Effective head sentence increased to 7 years' imprisonment | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN GREGORY PAUL QUARTERMAINE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Crown appeal Two counts of sexual assault One count of indecent assault Sentences of 2 years and 4 years respectively for two counts of sexual assault, sentence of 2 years in respect of indecent assault, all sentences being directed to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon sentence respondent then serving Whether sentences manifestly inadequate Totality principle Effective head sentence increased to 7 years, to be served cumulatively upon prior sentence |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Brockman v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970044; 4 February 1997 Jarvis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 201 McLean v The Queen [1999] WASCA 209 Nelson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950376; 1 June 1995 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Clark [2000] WASCA 229 R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 Coulter v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960507; 4 September 1996 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 MacFarlane v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940507; 16 September 1994 Nelson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950376; 1 June 1995 R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561 R v Blurton, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960425; 7 August 1996 R v Ginder (1987) 23 A Crim R 1 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Jensen (1991) 52 A Crim R 279 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 Wilson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950104; 10 March 1995 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- QUARTERMAINE [2000] WASCA 341 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- WALLWORK J
WHEELER J
- Appellant
AND
GREGORY PAUL QUARTERMAINE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Crown appeal - Two counts of sexual assault - One count of indecent assault - Sentences of 2 years and 4 years respectively for two counts of sexual assault, sentence of 2 years in respect of indecent assault, all sentences being directed to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon sentence respondent then serving - Whether sentences manifestly inadequate - Totality principle - Effective head sentence increased to 7 years, to be served cumulatively upon prior sentence
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Effective head sentence increased to 7…
Continue reading R v Quartermaine
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Quartermaine [2000] WASCA 341
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 341
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Quartermaine involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent for various sexual offences. The respondent was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault. The trial judge sentenced the respondent to two years' imprisonment for each count of sexual assault and two years' imprisonment for the indecent assault, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The Crown appealed the sentences as manifestly inadequate, arguing that they did not reflect the seriousness of the offences. The appeal focused on the application of the totality principle in sentencing and the need for a more severe punishment that would adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes committed.
The legal issues before the court involved the adequacy of the sentences imposed and the application of the totality principle. The Crown contended that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and did not sufficiently reflect the severity of the offences. The court had to consider whether the totality of the sentences, when taken together, appropriately addressed the crimes committed. Additionally, the court examined whether the concurrent sentences, despite their cumulative nature upon any prior sentence, were sufficient to meet the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation.
The court held that the sentences were indeed manifestly inadequate. The totality principle was applied to ensure that the cumulative effect of the sentences was sufficient to reflect the gravity of the respondent's crimes. The court increased the effective head sentence to seven years' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively upon any prior sentence the respondent might be serving. The appeal was thus allowed, and the sentences were amended accordingly. This adjustment aimed to ensure that the punishment met the appropriate standards of justice and served the necessary functions of deterrence and denunciation.
The legal issues before the court involved the adequacy of the sentences imposed and the application of the totality principle. The Crown contended that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and did not sufficiently reflect the severity of the offences. The court had to consider whether the totality of the sentences, when taken together, appropriately addressed the crimes committed. Additionally, the court examined whether the concurrent sentences, despite their cumulative nature upon any prior sentence, were sufficient to meet the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation.
The court held that the sentences were indeed manifestly inadequate. The totality principle was applied to ensure that the cumulative effect of the sentences was sufficient to reflect the gravity of the respondent's crimes. The court increased the effective head sentence to seven years' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively upon any prior sentence the respondent might be serving. The appeal was thus allowed, and the sentences were amended accordingly. This adjustment aimed to ensure that the punishment met the appropriate standards of justice and served the necessary functions of deterrence and denunciation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Effective head sentence increased to 7 years' imprisonment
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.