Worsnop v The Queen

The appellant, Worsnop, was convicted of stalking, indecent assault and rape and the matter was heard on appeal in the High Court of Australia. Worsnop appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that the jury was misdirected in relation to the effect of his belief in consent and that his sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in not applying the proviso to section 568(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, which pertains to the effect of the accused's belief in consent, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in not applying the proviso to section 568(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. The proviso was not applicable as it only applied to cases where the accused genuinely and reasonably believed that the complainant consented to sexual intercourse. The court found that Worsnop did not genuinely and reasonably believe that the complainant consented, as he was aware that the complainant did not consent and continued to have intercourse with her. The court also found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The total effective sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years was considered to be manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the case.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed. The appellant was re-sentenced to a total effective sentence of 3 years and 11 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months fixed. The court found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, given the appellant's lack of criminal history and his early guilty plea. The court also found that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences, but also take into account the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and the need for general deterrence. The final orders were that the appeal against the conviction be dismissed, the appeal against the sentence be allowed, and the appellant be re-sentenced as outlined above.