R v Simpson

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed by a District Court Judge on the appellant, who had been found guilty of two counts of indecent assault and one count of procuring an act of gross indecency. The appellant argued that the eight-year head sentence with a three-year non-parole period was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of his poor health. He also contended that the sentencing Judge had proceeded on an incorrect factual assumption regarding the availability of appropriate treatment programs for his health issues, and sought to adduce fresh evidence to support this claim.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing Judge had erred in his factual assessment concerning the provision of treatment for the appellant's health problems in custody. The court was also required to consider the admissibility of fresh evidence concerning the appellant's health and the adequacy of treatment received in prison.

The majority of the court found that while the sentencing Judge had not necessarily sentenced on an erroneous factual basis, the head sentence was manifestly excessive. Two judges specifically noted that the Judge failed to adequately consider the appellant's poor health and the inability of prison authorities to provide proper treatment for his ongoing mental illnesses. The court agreed that the sentence was affected by an erroneous belief that the appellant's psychological health problems would be treated appropriately in custody.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and resentenced the appellant. The majority imposed a head sentence of six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, to commence from the date of the original sentence. One judge, dissenting, proposed a head sentence of five years with an 18-month non-parole period.