MacCAULEY v WA [No 2]

[2017] WASCA 65

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Application to adduce additional evidence on appeal
5. › New expert psychiatric evidence obtained after sentencing
6. › Whether evidence shows facts in existence at time of sentence not properly appreciated
7. › Whether different sentence would have been imposed
8. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), ss 39(1), 40(1)(e)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Mental illness or psychological difficulties falling short of insanity
5. › Effect on moral culpability
6. › Effect on general and specific deterrence
7. › Causal connection between mental disorder and offending
8. › Whether moderately severe major depressive disorder reduces significance of deterrence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Resentencing by appellate court
5. › Whether appellate court should resentence where sentencing judge sentenced on basis of incorrect expert evidence

Quick Take

Where a sentencing judge sentences on the basis of an incorrect psychiatric diagnosis, and new expert evidence obtained after sentencing reveals a more serious mental disorder causally related to the offending, the appellate court may admit the new evidence and resentence. A moderately severe major depressive disorder that impairs judgment and is causally related to offending is a mitigating factor of greater significance than an adjustment disorder, warranting moderation of general and personal deterrence.