Squance v The State of Western Australia

Squance appealed against his sentence for arson and stealing, arguing that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider his mental illness as a mitigating factor. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. The primary issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge failed to consider the significance of Squance's mental illness and whether deterring others with mental illness from failing to take their medication can be a valid consideration in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge did take Squance's mental illness into account, as evidenced by the detailed psychiatric reports presented. However, the court emphasised that while mental illness is a relevant factor, it does not automatically mitigate the severity of the crime. The court also clarified that while deterrence of others in similar situations is a legitimate consideration, it must be balanced against the individual circumstances of the offender. The court concluded that the sentencing judge's overall approach was appropriate, and the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.