STEPHENSON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 98

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 98
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:204/1999	Heard:	8 MARCH 2001
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J ANDERSON J	Delivered:	28/03/01
No of pages:	24	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed and total sentence reduced to five years
PDF Version

Parties:	ANDREW PETER STEPHENSON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Sexual penetration of the vagina by the tongue with a child under the age of 13 years Indecent dealing with a child under the age of 13 years Breach of trust Total cumulative sentence of seven years manifestly excessive Total cumulative sentence reduced to five years Eligibility for parole
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Malone v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8180; 6 April 1990 Neil v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305 Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 Podirsky v The Queen (1990) 3 WAR 128 Price v The Queen (1988) 33 A Crim R 359 R v Fancourt, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8319; 18 June 1990 R v Ginder (1987) 23 A Crim R 1 R v Petchell, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930346; 16 June 1993 Sice v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940134; 11 March 1994 Squance v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8276; 31 May 1990 Stanton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920298; 28 May 1992 Steels v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930306; 27 May 1993 Sullivan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8626; 11 December 1990 Trescuri v The Queen [1999] WASCA 172 Woods v The Queen (1995) 14 WAR 341 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : STEPHENSON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 98 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

WALLWORK J

ANDERSON J

HEARD : 8 MARCH 2001 DELIVERED : 28 MARCH 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 204 of 1999

CCA 146 of 2000

CCA 277 of 2000

BETWEEN : ANDREW PETER STEPHENSON

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Sexual penetration of the vagina by the tongue with a child under the age of 13 years - Indecent dealing with a child under the age of 13 years - Breach of trust - Total cumulative sentence of seven years manifestly excessive - Total cumulative sentence reduced to five years - Eligibility for parole

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed and total sentence reduced to five years

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Unrepresented Criminal Appellants Scheme

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred…

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 Stephenson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stephenson v The Queen [2001] WASCA 98
Case: [2001] WASCA 98
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Stephenson, was convicted of two counts of sexual penetration of the vagina by the tongue with a child under the age of 13 years, and two counts of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 13 years. The crimes were committed against a single victim. The appellant was sentenced to a total cumulative term of seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower courts.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the total cumulative sentence of seven years was manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate and should be reduced. The respondent, The Queen, contended that the sentence was appropriate and should stand. The court needed to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and, if so, whether it should be reduced.

The court considered the gravity of the crimes, which involved a breach of trust and had a significant impact on the victim. However, the court noted that the sentence imposed was at the higher end of the scale for such offences. The court also took into account the appellant's background, his early guilty plea, and the fact that he had no prior convictions. The court concluded that the total cumulative sentence of seven years was manifestly excessive and should be reduced. The sentence was reduced to five years, with a non-parole period of three years. The appellant became eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of the total sentence.

The court granted the appellant leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and reduced the total sentence to five years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. The appellant became eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of the total sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed and total sentence reduced to five 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.