Watson v R

The appeal against conviction and sentence was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of two offences under the Crimes (Child Protection) Act 1997 (Cth), namely, non-compliance with a Child Protection Prohibition Order and failure to comply with a requirement to report under the same Act. The Crown did not contest the annulment of the Child Protection Prohibition Order. The appellant was also convicted of a number of state offences, for which he was sentenced along with the Commonwealth offences. The appellant appealed against both his convictions and sentences.

The court was required to determine whether the convictions and sentences were lawfully obtained. The court had to consider whether the Child Protection Prohibition Order was valid, and whether the appellant had failed to comply with it. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account the aggregate sentences for the state and Commonwealth offences.

The court found that the Child Protection Prohibition Order was invalid, and therefore the appellant's convictions for non-compliance with it and failure to report were quashed. The court held that the sentence for the state offences should be set aside, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant for the state offences alone. The court held that the sentence for the Commonwealth offences should be set aside, as it was imposed in the context of an invalid order, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant for the Commonwealth offences alone. The court held that the sentences for the state and Commonwealth offences should be served concurrently, and the appellant was to be re-sentenced for the state offences alone.

The court quashed the appellant's convictions for non-compliance with the Child Protection Prohibition Order and failure to report, and set aside the sentence for the state offences. The matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant for the state offences alone. The court held that the sentence for the Commonwealth offences should be set aside, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant for the Commonwealth offences alone. The court held that the sentences for the state and Commonwealth offences should be served concurrently.