WAP v R

WAP appealed against his sentence for two counts of sexual intercourse without consent, and one count of armed robbery. The offences were committed in 1992, but WAP was not charged until 2013, following a DNA match in a “cold case.” The sentence imposed was an aggregate term of imprisonment for 10 years, with a non-parole period of six years. WAP argued that the sentencing judge had infringed the principles established in De Simoni, erred in assessing the harm to the victims, and erred in the approach to delay and totality in relation to the sentences imposed for the other offences committed by the Applicant in 1993. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court found that the sentencing judge had not infringed the De Simoni principle, erred in assessing the harm to the victims, or erred in the approach to delay and totality. The court also found that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive given the objective gravity of the offences.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles established in De Simoni, whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the harm to the victims, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in the approach to delay and totality. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in any of these respects. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles established in De Simoni, and had correctly assessed the harm to the victims. The court also found that the sentencing judge had correctly approached the issues of delay and totality.

The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the sentencing judge's reasons. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly identified the relevant principles and had applied them to the facts of the case. The court also found that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the harm to the victims, and had correctly approached the issues of delay and totality. The court found that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive given the objective gravity of the offences. The appeal was dismissed.