M v WA

[2006] WASCA 256

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Sexual offences
4. › De facto child
5. › Sexual penetration and indecent dealing
6. › Totality principle
7. › Whether total effective sentence manifestly excessive
8. › Relevance of intensity and variety of offending over short period
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Intra-familial sexual abuse
5. › Good character and low risk of reoffending
6. › Psychological stress and childhood abuse history
7. › Weight to be given to mitigating factors in child sexual abuse cases
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Expert evidence
4. › Whether sentencing judge entitled to reject psychologist's characterisation of offending as aberration

Quick Take

In cases of intra-familial child sexual abuse, the offender's otherwise good character and low risk of reoffending do not warrant reduction of an otherwise appropriate sentence, as these features are common to such cases. The intensity and variety of offending within a short period can justify a sentence at the higher end of the VIM sentencing range (6 years 8 months to 12 years 8 months post-transitional provisions) even where the offending period is relatively brief. A sentencing judge is entitled to reject a psychologist's characterisation of persistent offending as an 'aberration' where that characterisation is inconsistent with the facts.