R v Warsap

[2011] SASCFC 129

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing orders
4. › Orders relating to dangerous sexual offenders
5. › Indeterminate detention
6. › Whether Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to sentence after declining to make order
7. › Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), s 23
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing procedure
4. › Factual basis for sentence
5. › Finding of anal intercourse based on uncontradicted sworn evidence
6. › Whether sentencing judge entitled to make finding not directly addressed by jury verdict
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Grounds for interference
5. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
6. › Persistent sexual exploitation of intellectually disabled child
7. › Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 50(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of statutory grants of jurisdiction
3. › Meaning of 'deal with'
4. › Whether words conferring jurisdiction on court should be given restricted meaning
5. › Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), s 23(6)

Quick Take

When the Supreme Court declines to make an indeterminate detention order under s 23 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), it retains jurisdiction to sentence the defendant and is not obliged to remit the matter to the court of trial. The Court also retains a discretion to remit in unusual circumstances. The phrase 'deal with' in s 23(6) is of wide import and does not limit the Court's powers.

Case Details

Citation[2011] SASCFC 129

CourtSASCFC

JurisdictionSouth Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on17

2010R v WarsapSASC 40
2009PNJ v The QueenHCA 6
2007R v MartinSASC 336
2006Mansfield v Director of Public Prosecutions for Western AustraliaHCA 38
and 13 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in