The State of Western Australia v Prince

The State of Western Australia brought an appeal against the sentence of Prince, who was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences against his granddaughter. The primary judge found the total sentence of five years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, manifestly inadequate and ordered a sentence of imprisonment for five years with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. The State sought a sentence of imprisonment for six years with a non-parole period of four years. The court was required to determine whether the total sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate, whether it breached the totality principle, and whether the sentence was unreasonable and unjust given the seriousness of the offending and customary sentences for multiple sexual offences by a person in a relationship of trust who pleaded not guilty.

The court noted the cumulative and compounding impact of the offending, the vulnerability of the victim, and the relationship of trust between the offender and the victim. It found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate and breached the totality principle, as it failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offending. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the importance of maintaining community confidence in the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the court held that the sentence was unreasonable and unjust, and substituted the sentence with imprisonment for six years and a non-parole period of four years.

The court ordered that Prince be imprisoned for six years with a non-parole period of four years, to be served in a maximum security prison. The court also ordered that Prince be subject to a sexual offender's registration for life and a supervision order for a period of ten years following his release from prison. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the sentence imposed by the primary judge was set aside and replaced with the sentence ordered by the court.