Penny v WA

[2016] WASCA 52

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Manifest excess
5. › Assault on police officer likely to endanger life, health or safety with intent to harm
6. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 304(2)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Basis of sentencing
4. › Intention to harm
5. › Whether sentencing judge erred in finding intent to endanger life under s 304(3)(b)
6. › Whether natural consequences presumption impermissibly applied
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 304(3)(b), (f)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Intent
3. › No presumption that person intends natural and probable consequences of acts
4. › Intention as inference from all the evidence
5. › Proof beyond reasonable doubt of aggravating intent for sentencing purposes

Quick Take

A sentencing judge cannot find an intent to endanger life under s 304(3)(b) of the Criminal Code (WA) based on the reasoning that the accused 'intended the natural consequences of his acts' where the endangerment resulted from an accidental discharge of a firearm with an engaged safety catch and there was no evidence the accused knew the safety mechanism was faulty. The distinction between intent to endanger life (s 304(3)(b)) and intent to prevent lawful police action (s 304(3)(f)) has significant sentencing consequences, with the former supporting substantially higher sentences.