WA v Cunningham

[2008] WASCA 240

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Possession of child pornography
4. › Whether sentence of suspended imprisonment manifestly inadequate
5. › Whether immediate imprisonment only option open
6. › Worst category of child pornography
7. › Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996 (WA), s 60(4)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Prosecution appeal against sentence
4. › Applicability of double jeopardy principle
5. › Whether double jeopardy principle remains relevant consideration
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 41(4)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Prosecution appeal against sentence
4. › Principles applicable to appellate review of sentencing discretion
5. › Whether sentencing judge erred in exercise of discretion

Quick Take

In cases of possession of child pornography under s 60(4) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996 (WA), where the material comprises or includes a substantial number of images of young children engaged in sexual activity, the general rule is that offenders will receive sentences of immediate imprisonment, with the sentencing range being 8 months to 2 years. Liddington stands as the sole exception, and was finely balanced on its facts involving excellent antecedents. Prosecution appeals against sentence post-27 April 2008 are no longer subject to the double jeopardy principle.