S -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 113
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 113 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:60/2003 | 1 APRIL 2004 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ TEMPLEMAN J MILLER J | 31/05/04 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted, Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | S THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Plea of guilty to ten counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16, seven counts of sexually penetrating a child between the ages of 13 and 16, one count of procuring a child under 16 to engage in sexual behaviour and three counts of breach of a violence restraining order Applicant a first offender under fasttrack system Whether total sentence of 10 years manifestly excessive |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), ss 321(2), (4) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 32 Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA) |
Case References: | AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111 Boudville v The Queen [2001] WASCA 133 D v The Queen [2003] WASCA 33 Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996 Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 LSC v The Queen [2003] WASCA 303 Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Fancourt, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8319; 18 June 1990 R v Petchell, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930346; 16 June 1993 Steuart v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950486; 15 September 1995 Woods v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 341 B v The Queen [2002] WASCA 236 Bosworth v The Queen [2004] WASCA 43 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 Cardile v The Queen [2003] WASCA 72 Chinnery v The Queen [2000] WASCA 295 Dauphin v The Queen [2002] WASCA 104 Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135 King v The Queen [2001] WASCA 103 Kirk v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980087; 17 February 1998 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Morley v The Queen [2001] WASCA 49 R v Astill (No 2) (1992) 64 A Crim R 289 R v Blurton, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960425; 7 August 1996 R v Chilvers [2003] WASCA 87 R v Dinsdale, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990021; 2 February 1999 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Halliday, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980143; 3 April 1998 R v Hough [2002] WASCA 42 R v Lippiatt, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980065; 17 February 1998 R v Lloyd, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960187; 4 April 1996 R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 |
Continue reading S v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- S v The Queen [2004] WASCA 113
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 113
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of [State], the matter of S v The Queen involved a defendant who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious sexual offences involving minors. The defendant was charged with ten counts of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 16, seven counts of sexually penetrating a child under 16, one count of procuring a child under 16 to engage in sexual behaviour, and three counts of breaching a violence restraining order. The defendant, who was a first offender, was sentenced under the fast-track system to a total of 10 years imprisonment, which the defendant argued was manifestly excessive.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the total sentence of 10 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive, given the defendant's status as a first offender and the overall circumstances of the case. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need to ensure proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the specific factors that contributed to the imposition of the sentence. The court also assessed whether the sentence was commensurate with those imposed in similar cases.
In its judgment, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It emphasised the gravity of the offences committed and the need to protect the community and deter future offending. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes and took into account all relevant factors, including the defendant's first-time offender status. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
No further orders were made by the court. The decision was that the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was upheld.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the total sentence of 10 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive, given the defendant's status as a first offender and the overall circumstances of the case. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need to ensure proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the specific factors that contributed to the imposition of the sentence. The court also assessed whether the sentence was commensurate with those imposed in similar cases.
In its judgment, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It emphasised the gravity of the offences committed and the need to protect the community and deter future offending. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes and took into account all relevant factors, including the defendant's first-time offender status. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
No further orders were made by the court. The decision was that the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted, Appeal dismissed
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.