SCRUTTON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 360

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 360
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:12/2000	Heard:	8 MAY 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY J WALLWORK J WHEELER J	Delivered:	24/11/00
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal against sentence granted Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	STANLEY FRASER SCRUTTON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Applicant convicted on four counts of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a male child under the age of 14 Prior convictions for indecent dealing with children Sentence of 2 years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon other sentences then being served Previous sentences subject to order for parole Sentencing Judge's refusal to order eligibility for parole No basis for interference with discretion
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995, s 89
Case References:	Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Armstrong v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980231; 21 April 1998 Cardillo v Taylor [1999] WASCA 166 Garlett v The Queen [2000] WASCA 72 Histon v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970197; 1 May 1997 Howell v The Queen (1989) 2 WAR 60 McLean v The Queen [1999] WASCA 209 R v Lowndes (1997) 95 A Crim R 516 R v Swain (1989) 41 A Crim R 214 Ward v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980098; 5 March 1998 Williams v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980146; 3 April 1998 Wongawol v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980233; 4 May 1998

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : SCRUTTON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 360 CORAM : KENNEDY J

WALLWORK J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 8 MAY 2000 DELIVERED : 24 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 12 of 2000 BETWEEN : STANLEY FRASER SCRUTTON

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Applicant convicted on four counts of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a male child under the age of 14 - Prior convictions for indecent dealing with children - Sentence of 2 years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon other sentences then being served - Previous sentences subject to order for parole - Sentencing Judge's refusal to order eligibility for parole - No basis for interference with discretion

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995, s 89

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to appeal against sentence granted

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D P A Moen

Respondent : Mr K P Bates

Solicitors:

Applicant : Taylor Smart

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

Case(s) also cited:

Armstrong v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA;…

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 Scrutton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Scrutton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 360
Case: [2000] WASCA 360
Decision Date: 24 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scrutton was convicted on four counts of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a male child under the age of 14. The case came before the court following Scrutton's appeal against his sentence. Scrutton had previous convictions for similar offences involving children, and his recent sentence comprised 2 years' imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon other sentences then being served. The sentencing judge refused to order eligibility for parole, which Scrutton argued should be reconsidered.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge's refusal to order eligibility for parole was an error of law or a significant procedural impropriety, or whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate or excessive. The court had to determine if there was any basis for interfering with the sentencing judge's discretion, considering the gravity of the offences, Scrutton's criminal history, and the sentencing principles applicable to the case.

The court found that the sentencing judge's decision was within the range of acceptable outcomes, and there was no error of law or significant procedural impropriety. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and Scrutton's history of similar offending. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal against sentence 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.