Dinsdale v R

Last updated

Dinsdale v R
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameDinsdale v The Queen
Decided7 September 2000
Citation(s) [2000] HCA 54, 202 CLR 321
Case opinions
appeal allowed
The suspended sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly inadequate
Gleeson CJ & Hayne JJ
Gaudron & Gummow JJ
Kirby J
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingGleeson, Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby, and Hayne JJ

Dinsdale v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

Contents

It is notable in Australian criminal law as an authority on suspended sentences, the discretion of appellate courts to overturn sentences imposed by lower courts, and the nature of crown criminal appeals. [1] [2] [3]

The facts of the case involved a man indicted in Western Australia's District Court on two counts relating to the sexual abuse of a child under 13 years.

According to LawCite, it is the 33rd most cited case of the High Court. [4] [5]

Facts

Pictured: The Coat of Arms of Western Australia. Dinsdale had been sentenced under the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) Coat of arms of Western Australia.svg
Pictured: The Coat of Arms of Western Australia. Dinsdale had been sentenced under the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Christin Robert Dinsdale had been indicted in the District Court of one count of sexual penetration of a child under 13 years, and one count of indecently dealing with that child. Both offences were alleged to have occurred on the same date and place. He pleaded not guilty, but was convicted on both counts. The trial judge, Justice Viol, sentenced him to concurrent terms of suspended imprisonment, each of 18 months length. [6]

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the prosecution appeal, and set aside the sentence imposed by the trial judge on the offence of sexual penetration. They ordered that the appellant be sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. The order for suspension was set aside. [7]

Dinsdale then appealled to the High Court.

Judgement

Depicted: a courtroom scene of a judge imposing a sentence upon two offenders A courtroom scene showing a judge passing sentence Wellcome V0045185.jpg
Depicted: a courtroom scene of a judge imposing a sentence upon two offenders

The High Court unanimously upheld Dinsdale's appeal. It found that the trial judge's sentence was not manifestly inadequate, and that the Court of Appeal ought not have interfered. [8] Kirby J additionally found that the Court of Appeal had considered too narrow a set of factors in deciding not to impose a suspended sentence. He found that the appellate court had only considered Dinsdale's prospects for rehabilitation, and preferred the trial judge's more wholistic view of factors relevant to that decision. [3] [Note 1] [Note 2]

Significance

Dinsdale has been cited many times for its comments about written reasons in the event of an appellate court finding manifest error in criminal sentencing. [1] [9] Gleeson CJ & Hayne JJ wrote:

"Manifest inadequacy of sentence, like manifest excess, is a conclusion. A sentence is, or is not, unreasonable or plainly unjust; inadequacy or excess is, or is not, plainly apparent. It is a conclusion which does not depend upon attribution of identified specific error in the reasoning of the sentencing judge and which frequently does not admit of amplification except by stating the respect in which the sentence is inadequate or excessive. It may be inadequate or excessive because the wrong type of sentence has been imposed (for example, custodial rather than non‑custodial) or because the sentence imposed is manifestly too long or too short. But to identify the type of error amounts to no more than a statement of the conclusion that has been reached. It is not a statement of reasons for arriving at the conclusion. A Court of Criminal Appeal is not obliged to employ any particular verbal formula so long as the substance of its conclusions and its reasons is made plain. The degree of elaboration that is appropriate or possible will vary from case to case."

The case has also been numerously cited for Kirby J's comments regarding crown criminal appeals. He wrote: [2] [9]

"For reasons of legal history and policy, the position of Crown appeals against sentence has long been regarded, in Australia and elsewhere, as being in a class somewhat different from that of an appeal against sentence by a convicted offender. When first introduced, Crown appeals were considered to cut across "time-honoured concepts" of the administration of criminal justice in common law legal systems. For this reason, it has sometimes been said that, as a "matter of principle", such appeals should be a comparative rarity. The attitude of restraint reflected in such remarks has often been justified on the basis that a Crown appeal against sentence puts the prisoner in jeopardy of punishment for a second time, a feature that is ordinarily missing from an appeal, or application for leave to appeal, brought by those who have been sentenced. The consequence is that where the Crown appeals, it is normally obliged to demonstrate very clearly the error of which it complains. The further consequence is that, where such demonstration succeeds, it is conventional for the appellate court to impose a substituted sentence towards the lower end of the range of available sentences. This convention tends to add an additional restraint upon interference, given the strong resistance that exists against appellate "tinkering" with sentences."

The case is additionally known for the proposition that rehabilitation of an offender is not the only relevant factor when deciding to impose a suspended sentence. Other factors, such as the objective gravity of the offending, may also be relevant. [Note 1] [10] [3]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 The trial judge's approach, which was preferred by Kirby took into account: "all the circumstances and information available, including the nature of the particular offence, the low likelihood of the appellant's reoffending, and the impact which a prison sentence, immediately served, would have on the appellant and his family." 202 CLR 321, at para [88]
  2. ↑ Gaudron & Gummow JJ concurred with Kirby's reasons on this point

Related Research Articles

Appellate procedure in the United States National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

Appellate court Court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal

An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts, often on a discretionary basis. A particular court system's supreme court is its highest appellate court. Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules.

In law, a sentence is the punishment for a crime ordered by a trial court after conviction in a criminal procedure, normally at the conclusion of a trial. A sentence may consist of imprisonment, a fine, or other sanctions. Sentences for multiple crimes may be a concurrent sentence, where sentences of imprisonment are all served together at the same time, or a consecutive sentence, in which the period of imprisonment is the sum of all sentences served one after the other. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by street time period of parole, supervised release or probation until the total sentence is completed.

Grievous bodily harm is a term used in English criminal law to describe the severest forms of battery. It refers to two offences that are respectively created by sections 18 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The distinction between these two sections is the requirement of specific intent for section 18; the offence under section 18 is variously referred to as "wounding with intent" or "causing grievous bodily harm with intent", whereas the offence under section 20 is variously referred to as "unlawful wounding", "malicious wounding" or "inflicting grievous bodily harm".

Magistrates court (England and Wales) Lower court in the criminal legal system of England and Wales

In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears cases of summary offences and preliminary hearings for more serious ones. Some civil law matters are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2015, there were roughly 330 magistrates' courts in England and Wales, though the government was considering closing up to 57 of these. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

County Court of Victoria Principal trial court of the state of Victoria, Australia

The County Court of Victoria is the intermediate court in the Australian state of Victoria. It is equivalent to district courts in the other states.

High Court of Singapore Lower division of national supreme court

The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. It consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.

Court of Appeal of Singapore Supreme appellate court of Singapore

The Court of Appeal of Singapore is the nation's highest court and court of final appeal. It is the upper division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the lower being the High Court. The Court of Appeal consists of the chief justice, who is the president of the Court, and the Judges of Appeal. The chief justice may ask judges of the High Court to sit as members of the Court of Appeal to hear particular cases. The seat of the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court Building.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.

S v Rabie is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 12 September 1975, with judgment handed down on 23 September. The presiding officers were Holmes JA, Corbett JA and Kotzé AJA. The case is significant primarily in the area of sentencing, with its determination that the punishment should

In law, post conviction refers to the legal process which takes place after a trial results in conviction of the defendant. After conviction, a court will proceed with sentencing the guilty party. In the American criminal justice system, once a defendant has received a guilty verdict, he or she can then challenge a conviction or sentence. This takes place through different legal actions, known as filing an appeal or a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The goal of these proceedings is exoneration, or proving a convicted person innocent. If lacking representation, the defendant may consult or hire an attorney to exercise his or her legal rights.

In S v B is an important case in South African criminal law, often cited for its findings as to the considerations to be taken into account in sentencing.

<i>M v R</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

M v R or M v The Queen is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court. It is an important authority in the field of criminal law, for the circumstances in which it is permissible for a jury's guilty verdict to be overturned by a judge. The case involved an appeal against criminal conviction by a father, against allegations of sexual assault and rape by his daughter. His appeal was allowed by majority.

<i>House v The King</i>

House v The King is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Fox v Percy</i>

Fox v Percy is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Cranssen v R</i>

Cranssen v the King is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>R v De Simoni</i>

R v De Simoni is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Pearce v R</i>

Pearce v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

<i>DPP v Ziegler</i> 2021 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and others [2021] UKSC 23 is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

References

  1. 1 2 202 CLR 321 at para [6]
  2. 1 2 202 CLR 321 at para [62]
  3. 1 2 3 202 CLR 321 at para [88]
  4. ↑ Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=&section=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
  5. ↑ Note: data is as of September 2020
  6. ↑ 202 CLR 321 at para 1
  7. ↑ 202 CLR 321 at para 2
  8. ↑ 202 CLR 321 at paras [18], [26], [73]
  9. 1 2 "Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54 - BarNet Jade". jade.io. Retrieved 6 December 2020.
  10. ↑ "When can a term of imprisonment be suspended by the courts?". www.findlaw.com.au. Retrieved 6 December 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.