DRH v WA

[2021] WASCA 97

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 conviction
4. › Inconsistent verdicts
5. › Whether verdict of guilty on one count inconsistent with verdicts of acquittal on other counts
6. › Whether timing issue distinguishing counts provided proper basis for reconciliation of verdicts
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Manifest excess
5. › Sexual offending against child
6. › Whether sentencing judge entitled to find offending not isolated despite acquittals on other counts
7. › Whether 3 years' immediate imprisonment manifestly excessive
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 321(3)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Fact-finding by sentencing judge
4. › Relationship between jury verdicts and sentencing findings
5. › Whether sentencing judge precluded from finding prior sexual conduct where jury acquitted on specific counts
6. › Standard of proof for aggravating facts

Quick Take

A sentencing judge is not precluded from finding beyond reasonable doubt that an offender engaged in prior sexual conduct with the complainant merely because the jury acquitted on specific counts alleging such conduct, where the sentencing finding relates to sexual activity apart from the charged offences. Acquittals on some counts of sexual offending do not render a conviction on another count inconsistent where the evidentiary issue affecting the acquitted counts (here, timing of events) did not affect the count on which the offender was convicted.