WM v R

The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia in WM v R. The applicant, WM, sought to appeal the sentence imposed for engaging in sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years of age. The victim was WM's own child, who was 9 months old at the time of the offence. WM's appeal focused on the sentencing judge's handling of the breach of trust and the imposition of the sentence in relation to a co-offender. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the breach of trust, if the parity principle was appropriately applied, and whether WM's sense of grievance was justified given the sentence imposed on the co-offender.

The court considered that the sentencing judge correctly identified the breach of trust inherent in WM's role as a father and person of authority over the victim. The judge weighed this breach of trust in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also found that the parity principle, which seeks to ensure similar sentences for similar crimes, was correctly applied. The judge took into account the similarities and differences in the cases of WM and the co-offender, ensuring the sentences were proportionate and not manifestly excessive. The court determined that WM's sense of grievance was not justified because the sentence reflected the severity of the crime and the breach of trust.

The High Court held that the sentencing judge did not err in assessing the breach of trust, applying the parity principle, or in the overall sentence imposed. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case and the specific nature of the breach of trust when sentencing for such offences.