Dunbar v WA

[2020] WASCA 90

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against sentence
3. › Grievous bodily harm with intent
4. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
5. › Sentence substantially above customary range
6. › Countervailing sentencing factors of public protection and punishment outweighing mitigating factors
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 294(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Irrelevant considerations
4. › Whether sentencing judge sentenced on basis of uncharged offence
5. › Whether finding of intent to kill taken into account as aggravating factor
6. › De Simoni principle
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 294(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Profound childhood deprivation
5. › Mental disorder
6. › Whether mitigating effect outweighed by countervailing factors of public protection and deterrence
7. › Bugmy v The Queen principles
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Customary sentencing range
4. › Whether sentence outside customary range is manifestly excessive
5. › Sentencing standards as yardsticks not binding precedents

Quick Take

A sentence substantially above the customary range for s 294(1)(a) Criminal Code (WA) offences is not manifestly excessive where the offending is exceptionally serious and the mitigating effect of profound childhood deprivation and mental disorder is comprehensively outweighed by countervailing factors of public protection and punishment. The customary sentencing range does not fix quantitative boundaries within which future sentences must be imposed. A sentencing judge's comments about the form of the indictment do not, without more, establish that the offender was sentenced for an uncharged offence.