R v W - [2015] SASCFC 86

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal: Case Stated)
R v W
[2015] SASCFC 86
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Vanstone, The Honourable Justice Kelly and The Honourable Justice Peek)
11 June 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT - OTHER MATTERS
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - PLEAS - GENERAL PLEAS - PLEA OF GUILTY - EFFECT
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING PROCEDURE - MATERIAL RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING APPROPRIATE SENTENCE - OTHER MATTERS
The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated indecent assault in the Magistrates Court on 22 May 2010. The defendant disputed the aggravating feature that the victim was under 14 years of age. A question of whether the guilty plea was valid when the aggravating factor was disputed was raised in the District Court. The Judge reserved questions for consideration by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The questions reserved ask this court to determine whether s 56(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act creates a single offence, with an aggravating factor affecting sentencing, or two separate offences.
Held (The Court):
1. The defendant entered a valid plea in the Magistrates Court to the offence of Aggravated indecent assault.
2. Circumstances of aggravation prescribed by s 56(2) should be pleaded in the information.
3. Aggravating factors in s 5AA must be pleaded on the information.
4. Where a defendant admits to one or more aggravating factors any disputed aggravating factors, to that charge, must be determined by the Judge in sentencing.
5. Where a defendant does not admit any aggravated features pleaded then it is a matter of determination for a jury.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 5AA, s 56; Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Aggravated Offences) Act 2005 (SA), referred to.
R v Hietanen (1989) 51 SASR 510; Ayles v The Queen (2008) 232 CLR 410; R v Meaton (1986) 160 CLR 359, considered.

WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED
"aggravation", "statutory construction", "information", "pleaded on information", "aggravating factor", "multiple aggravating factors", "sentencing of aggravated offences"

R v W
[2015] SASCFC 86
Court of Criminal Appeal: Kourakis CJ, Gray, Vanstone, Kelly and Peek JJ

THE COURT: This is a case stated by a Judge of the District Court to the Full Court pursuant to s 350(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the Act). The case arises out of the sentencing proceedings of the defendant W.
On 22 May 2014 W pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to three counts of aggravated indecent assault against his daughter. Each count was identically charged as follows:
Between the 31^st day of August 2011 and the 1^st day of December 2011 at GOOLWA in the said State, indecently assaulted [AW], a child under the age of fourteen years. Section 56(1) of the

Grounds of appeal

[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 W

Details

AGLC: R v W [2015] SASCFC 86
Case: [2015] SASCFC 86
Decision Date: 11 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v W concerned an appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court. The specific details of the original charges and the appellant's plea are not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the appeal focused on the sentencing procedure employed by the trial judge.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was the correctness of the sentencing procedure adopted by the District Court, particularly in light of statutory provisions and established legal authority. The court was required to determine whether the procedure followed was lawful and appropriate for the sentencing of the appellant.

The Full Court affirmed that the sentencing procedure employed was sanctioned by both existing legal authority, specifically referencing *R v Meaton*, and by s 5AA(6) of the relevant Act, including the statutory note to that subsection. This indicates the court found the procedure to be consistent with established legal principles and legislative requirements governing sentencing. The court's reasoning appears to be that the procedure, as outlined and applied, met the necessary legal standards for imposing a sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The sentencing procedure we have outlined is sanctioned both by authority[5] and by s 5AA(6) of the Act including the statutory note to that subsection.[5] See R v Meaton (1986) 160 CLR 359 at 364.Conclusion We would answer the questions as follows:

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.