Legal Research
Cases
Wright v The Queen

Wright v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 243 2 September 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0135

JESSE JAMES WRIGHT	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

----

JUDGES:	PRIEST and EMERTON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 August 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 September 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 243
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Wright [2020] VCC 837 (Judge C Ryan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Sentence — Rape — Sentence 8 years’ imprisonment with 6 years non-parole — Appellant with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Schizophrenia — Prior convictions for similar offending — Serious sexual offender — Whether community protection given too much weight — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J McLoughlin	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr J C J McWilliams	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA

Introduction

Following a plea of guilty, on 12 June 2020 a judge of the County Court sentenced the appellant for the crime of rape[1] to eight years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years.[2]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 38(1). The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment; and, by virtue of s 38(3) the standard sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to s 11A(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, the judge was required to fix a non-parole period of at least 60 per cent of the head term, unless satisfied it was not in the interests of justice to do so.
[2]The appellant was also sentenced to one month’s imprisonment — to be served concurrently — for the related summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. See Bail Act 1977, s 30B.

On 30 November 2020, I granted the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence on two grounds:[3]
[3]Wright v The Queen (Unreported, Court of Appeal, Priest JA, 30 November 2020) (‘Leave Reasons’).

1. The head sentence and non-parole period imposed are manifestly excessive in the light of
i. The circumstances of the offence being below the mid-range of seriousness in the submission of the prosecution
ii. The applicant’s immediate surrender to police, confession, and early plea of guilty
iii. The applicant’s serious mental impairment leading to a finding by the learned sentencing Judge that general and specific deterrence should be moderated
iv. The additional burden of imprisonment for the applicant arising from his mental impairment
v. The applicant’s relative youth
vi. Current sentencing practices.

2. The learned sentencing judge erred in giving too much weight to protection of the community and in seeking to achieve protection of the community by imposing a longer sentence of imprisonment.[4]

[4]Leave to appeal was refused on a third ground, as follows:

3. The learned sentencing judge erred in failing to recognise that the causal connection between the applicant’s autism spectrum disorder and his offending reduced his moral culpability and the degree of punishment appropriate in those circumstances and rendered the applicant an unsuitable vehicle for denunciation.

Having now had the benefit of further argument,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wright v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wright v The Queen [2021] VSCA 243
Case: [2021] VSCA 243
Decision Date: 2 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wright v The Queen, the appellant, Mr. Wright, was convicted of rape and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. Mr. Wright has a history of similar offences and has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Schizophrenia. He appealed against the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight was given to his disabilities and psychiatric conditions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge had given too much weight to the need for community protection and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the appellant's psychiatric conditions and previous offending history. The court was required to balance the appellant's psychiatric conditions and prior convictions with the need for deterrence and denunciation, as well as the gravity of the offence.

The court held that while the appellant's psychiatric conditions and prior convictions were relevant factors, they did not outweigh the seriousness of the current offence. The court found that the primary judge had appropriately considered the appellant's psychiatric conditions and had not given undue weight to the need for community protection. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of the appellant's previous offending history and the need for deterrence and denunciation in cases of serious sexual offending. The court also noted that the appellant's psychiatric conditions did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions.

Orders