R v WBG

In the matter of R v WBG, the applicant appealed against his sentence after pleading guilty to multiple sexual offences against his three biological daughters, all under the age of 12 at the time. The trial judge imposed various concurrent terms of imprisonment, with a head sentence of 10 years. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the appropriate grounds for interference.

The key issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the 10-year head sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal considered the severity and duration of the offending, the age of the victims, and the fact that the offending occurred while the applicant had custody of the children. The Court of Appeal also took into account the applicant's attempts to manipulate his daughters into keeping the abuse secret and the absence of penile-vaginal intercourse. The Court of Appeal noted that the applicant's reliance on R v EK and R v BBM was not persuasive, as the facts and circumstances of those cases were different from the present case. The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offending. The Court of Appeal also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a reduction in sentence. The Court of Appeal therefore refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence.