A sentencing judge's use of inappropriate or intemperate language during sentencing proceedings does not, without more, equate to an erroneous sentence where no actual or perceived bias is alleged and no error of fact or law is apparent from the language used. A sentencing judge should not describe an offender's sexual orientation in terms that could validate an erroneous correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia. An error of fact by a sentencing judge that has no material effect on the sentence imposed does not warrant appellate intervention under s 31(4) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.