Steele v The State of Western Australia

In the case of Steele v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, Steele, appealed against his conviction and sentence for indecent assault against several boys aged between 11 and 18 years. The primary judge had presided over the trial, and Steele's appeal to the Court of Appeal sought to overturn the conviction and sentence on several grounds. Steele argued that the primary judge should have ordered a trial by judge alone and that the sentencing judge had erred in considering the prevalence of such offences and the need to protect the community. Additionally, Steele contended that the total effective sentence was excessive and that the individual sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The court was required to decide whether there had been a miscarriage of justice when the primary judge did not order a trial by judge alone, whether the sentencing judge had erred in considering the prevalence of the offences and the heightened need to protect the community, and whether the total effective sentence and individual sentences imposed were excessive. The appeal raised significant questions about the appropriate approach to sentencing in cases involving historical sexual offences and the role of judicial discretion in such cases.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the primary judge's decision not to order a trial by judge alone, as the evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in considering the prevalence of the offences and the need to protect the community, as these were relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence. However, the court found that the total effective sentence was excessive and that the individual sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court reduced the total effective sentence and the individual sentences, reflecting a more balanced approach to sentencing in such cases.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and sentence and ordered a new sentencing hearing, with directions to ensure that the new sentence was proportionate to the offending and reflected the principles of sentencing in historical sexual offence cases. The court emphasised the importance of considering the impact of such offences on the victims and the need to protect the community while also ensuring that the sentence was just and proportionate to the offending.