"S" -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 309
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 309 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:112/2003 | 6 NOVEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | MILLER J MCKECHNIE J WALLWORK AJ | 10/12/03 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Sentence varied by suspension of term for 2 years | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | "S" THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentence Attempting to pervert the course of justice Sentence of 2 years' imprisonment Offender mother of a disabled child Medical evidence that child required both parents Whether sentence ought to have been suspended |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) |
Case References: | Adams v The Queen [2003] WASCA 91 Dodd v Hoogewerf [2002] WASCA 15 Dodd v Hoogewert [2002] WASCA 15 Franklyn v R (1981) 3 Cr App R 65 Haleth v R (1982) 4 Cr App R 178 Hodder v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 264 James (1985) 14 A Crim R 364 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 Nguyen v The Queen (2001) 160 FLR 284 R v Hinton (2002) 134 A Crim R 286 R v Stewart (1994) 72 A Crim R 17 Stewart v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940081; 21 February 1994 Vaughan v R (1982) 4 Cr App R 83 Whitehead v R [1996] 1 Cr App R 111 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Morgan v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 518 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : "S" -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 309 CORAM : MILLER J
- MCKECHNIE J
WALLWORK AJ
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentence - Attempting to pervert the course of justice - Sentence of 2 years' imprisonment - Offender mother of a disabled child - Medical evidence that child required both parents - Whether sentence ought to have been suspended
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
(Page 2)
Appeal allowed
Sentence varied by suspension of term for 2 years
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R G W Bayly
Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart
Solicitors:
Appellant : Bayly & O'Brien
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Adams v The Queen [2003] WASCA 91
Dodd v Hoogewerf [2002] WASCA 15
Dodd v Hoogewert [2002] WASCA 15
Franklyn v R (1981) 3 Cr App R 65
Haleth v R (1982) 4 Cr App R 178
Hodder v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 264
James (1985) 14 A Crim R 364
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273
Nguyen…
Continue reading S v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- S v The Queen [2003] WASCA 309
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 309
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of S v The Queen, the defendant was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice and was sentenced to a two-year imprisonment term. The defendant is a mother of a disabled child, and she appealed against her sentence, arguing that it should have been suspended. The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence should have been suspended, given the defendant's role as the primary caregiver for her disabled child. The court considered the importance of both parents in the upbringing of a disabled child and the impact of the defendant's absence on her child. The court found that the sentence should have been suspended, and the appeal was allowed. The sentence was varied by suspending the two-year term for two years, taking into account the defendant's role as the primary caregiver for her disabled child. The decision highlights the importance of considering the impact of a custodial sentence on vulnerable individuals, such as disabled children, and the need for courts to balance the needs of the community with the needs of individual defendants.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentence varied by suspension of term for 2 years
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.