Friday, 25 November 2016
Weekly Criminal Law Review
Editor - Richard Thomas of Counsel
A Weekly Bulletin listing Decisions
of Superior Courts of Australia covering criminal
Search Engine
Click here to access our search engine facility to search legal issues, case names, courts and
judges. Simply type in a keyword or phrase and all relevant cases that we have reported in
Benchmark since its inception in June 2007 will be available with links to each case.
Executive Summary
AK v R (NSWCCA) - criminal law - sentence appeal - representative counts - sexual assaults whether sentence miscarried by judge relying upon uncharged acts - applicable sentencing
principles for representative counts considered - error demonstrated - no lesser sentence
warranted - appeal dismissed
MM v R (NSWCCA) - criminal law - conviction appeal after entering plea of guilty - principles to
be applied - withdrawal of plea - relevant principles considered - relevance of legal advice - plea
constituted cogent admission - sentence appeal - sentence not unreasonable - appeal
dismissed
R v Saleh, Haissan (NSWCCA) - criminal law - leniency appeal - whether discount allowed for
assistance to authorities excessive - respondent pleaded guilty to serious drug offences discount of 20% - discount excessive - relevance of residual discretion considered resentenced
DN v R (NSWCCA) - criminal law - conviction & sentence appeal - consciousness of guilt whether Edwards direction required - whether omission occasioned substantial miscarriage - s6
Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) considered - Edwards-type direction required, but no substantial
miscarriage - sentence not manifestly excessive
The Queen v Parry (VSC) - criminal law - murder - sentence - offender under the effects of
‘ice’ at time of fatal attack - offender taking the law into his own hands - discount for plea sentence imposed 19 years, NPP 15 years
Page 1
Waldon v The Queen (VSCA) - criminal law - sentence appeal - applicant pleaded guilty to 3
sexual offences involving a child under 16 - complainant with autism - applicant, a youth worker,
argued double punishment imposed and sentence manifestly excessive - appeal dismissed
R v Struber; R v Wilson-Struber (QCA) - criminal law - murder - application to adduce further
evidence - circumstantial case with evidential gaps - principles relating to the admission of fresh
evidence considered - possible miscarriage for one appellant - appeal allowed, but dismissed
for second appellant
R v M, G (SASCFC) - criminal law - sentence appeal - hardship to dependants - suspension of
sentence - 72-year-old pleading guilty to sexual offences against stepson’s 5-year-old daughter
- whether hardship a relevant matter on sentence - test to be applied - whether suspended
sentence appropriate - offending serious and required sentence of deterrence - resentenced
Kere Kere v The State of Western Australia (WASCA) - criminal law - conviction & sentence
appeal - applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm
(s297(1) Criminal Code 1913 (WA)) - nightclub assault on innocent bystander - sentenced to 3
years - appeal dismissed
The State of Western Australia v Siddiqu (No 2) (WASC) - criminal law - murder - insanity accused suffering from schizophrenia, with paranoid and delusional beliefs - Criminal Code
1913 (WA) and common law of insanity considered and applied - not guilty by reason of mental
illness
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
AK v R [2016] NSWCCA 238
Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P, Johnson & Harrison JJ
Criminal law - applicant pleaded guilty to 2 counts of assaults with acts of indecency (s61M(2)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and 1 count of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child (s66C(2)
Crimes Act 1900), with a further count of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child on a Form 1
- offences occurred in 2010-2011 - 2 complainants, one suffering chronic post-traumatic stress
disorder - applicant had prior record and did not give evidence at sentence - agreed statement
of facts tendered on sentence - discount of 10% allowed - finding of special circumstances (time
in custody to be in protective custody) - sentenced to an effective term of 11 years 3 months 2
weeks, NPP 8 years - application for extension of time to appeal sentences - grounds of appeal
Page 2
(1) that sentencing judge erred in manner in which uncharged acts of sexual conduct were
taken into account and (2) in finding that the applicant did not accept the seriousness of his
offending - held: difficulties in communication with Legal Aid and the Court resulted in the delay
- extension of time should be granted - it was conceded by the applicant that the agreed
statement of facts referred to ‘inappropriate sexual touching’ of complainant by applicant since
2009 - it was clearly open for the sentencing judge to have regard to the agreed facts and to
consider the offences against that background - it was not erroneous to describe the offending
as being part of a continuing course of conduct - R v JCW (2000) 112 A Crim R 466 identifies
the accepted approach to sentencing for representative counts where a plea of guilty has been
entered - the history should not be used as the basis for sentencing, or as a matter of
aggravation, for charges other than those in the indictment - the sentencing judge’s words that
these matters ‘add to this offending’ however constituted error as elevating the objective
seriousness by way of aggravation - resentencing required - no error demonstrated in relation to
the second ground - on issue of resentencing: (1) offences serious, offending was not an
isolated or aberrant act and had escalated; (2) the Form 1 offence required the court to give
greater weight to the need for specific deterrence and retribution (see: A G’s Application Under
Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR
146, [42]; R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469) - here, there was additional expert evidence
identifying the serious harm actually caused to one complainant - this constitutes an important
feature of this case (see s3A(g) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)) - no lesser
sentence was warranted - appeal dismissed.
AK
MM v R [2016] NSWCCA 235
Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales
Bathurst CJ, Johnson J & R S Hulme AJ
Criminal law - applicant entered a plea to 1 offence of specially aggravated break and enter &
committing serious indictable offence (s112(3) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) - applicant provided
assistance to authorities - applicant with extensive criminal history , including for armed robbery
- applicant on parole at time offences committed - discount of 25% allowed for plea - sentence
reduced by 5 years for applicant’s assistance to authorities (s23(4) Crimes (Sentencing
Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)) - offence characterised as ‘extremely serious’ - sentenced to 9
years, NPP 6 years - applicant sought extension of time to appeal conviction and sentence grounds of appeal (1) admission of Statement of Facts on sentence and (2) failure to adduce
evidence of applicant’s mental condition occasioned miscarriage and (3) sentence
unreasonable - held: reading affidavits by the applicant’s solicitor, an extension of time should
be granted - the court may quash a conviction on a plea of guilty if it is demonstrated that a
miscarriage of justice will occur if the appellant is not permitted to withdraw his plea - principles
to be applied are summarised in R v Thalari (2009) 75 NSWLR 307, [32]-[35] - there is no
closed category of circumstances capable of giving rise to a miscarriage of justice and each
case depends upon its own circumstances (R v KCH (2001) 124 A Crim R 233, [32]) authorities on withdrawal of plea considered (Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; Wong
Page 3
v DPP (2005) 155 A Crim R 37; Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; Kennedy v R
[2016] NSWCCA 114; R v Wilkes (2001) 122 A Crim R 310) - here, while the applicant’s legal
representation was not ideal, he ‘well understood’ the charge and its elements and his focus
was on relying upon his assistance to authorities to mitigate his sentence - the applicant bears
the onus of establishing a good and substantial reason for the Court to grant leave to withdraw
a plea (R v Thalari, supra, [33]-[34]) - here, the applicant pleaded guilty in open court knowing
the elements of the offence - the plea constituted a cogent admission of those elements and no
undue pressure to enter the plea has been demonstrated - leave granted, conviction appeal
dismissed - the admission of the Statement of Facts did not occasion a miscarriage - the
admission of evidence relating to the applicant’s mental condition would have had little role to
play on sentence - his drug addiction would not have assisted him (see: s21A(5AA) Crimes
(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; R v Henry 46 NSWLR 346, [197]) - circumstances of
‘aggravation’ and ‘special aggravation’ considered - here the offence was extremely serious,
committed by an offender on conditional liberty with a history of committing serious crime - the
sentence was not unreasonable, or plainly unjust - sentence appeal dismissed.
MM
R v Saleh, Haissan [2016] NSWCCA 216
Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P, Garling & Fagan JJ
Criminal law - leniency appeal - respondent pleaded guilty to offences of supplying and
knowingly having taken part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine
(s25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)) - respondent with prior record including
for offences of violence and dishonesty - assessed as a moderate risk of reoffending sentenced to aggregate sentence of 4 years 8 months, NPP 3 years 6 months - discounts
allowed for the pleas 25% and 10% and an additional 20% allowed for respondent’s assistance
to authorities (s23 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)) - held: by reference to the
criteria in s23(2), the respondent’s assistance was very limited - the appropriate discount was
10% - error identified - the disparity between the sentence imposed and the appropriate
sentence was such that the residual discretion to refrain from intervening should not be
exercised (see CMB v A-G for NSW (2015) 256 CLR 346; R v Mereb; R v Younan [2014]
NSWCCA 149) - resentenced to aggregate term of 9 years 4 months, NPP 7 years.
Saleh, Haissan
DN v R [2016] NSWCCA 252
Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P, Davies & Garling JJ
Criminal law - conviction & sentence appeal - appellant convicted of one count of sexual
intercourse with a person under 16 (s61J(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) & one count of inciting a
person under 16 to commit an act of indecency with knowledge that the act was being filmed on
a mobile phone to produce child abuse material (s61O(2A) Crimes Act 1900) - at trial, the
appellant was cross examined as to why he had changed his mobile phone number and what
Page 4
had happened to the mobile phone used to film the complainant - in closing, the prosecutor
referred to the appellant’s evidence of disposing of the phone as corroborating the complainant
if the jury did not accept the appellant’s evidence - sentenced to 2 concurrent terms of 6 years,
NPP 4 years (s61J(1)) & 10 months (s61O(2A)) - on appeal, argued a miscarriage of justice was
occasioned by the prosecutor’s use of consciousness of guilt reasoning and that the sentence
was manifestly excessive - held: ground requiring leave, r4 Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW),
principles and authorities considered (Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; ARS v R
[2011] NSWCCA 266) - as a direction on the issue of consciousness of guilt reasoning would
have been given if sought, leave granted - legal principles governing directions as to
consciousness of guilt reasoning considered (Edwards v R (1998) 178 CLR 193, 209, 211;
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234, [16]; McKey; R v GJH (2001) 122 A Crim R 361; R v
Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52) - the real question here was whether the Crown’s statement could
have led the jury to reason that changing the telephone number and disposing of the phone (if
they accepted that) involved consciousness of guilt reasoning requiring a direction to ensure
that there was no confusion as to the way the prosecution put its case (Zoneff, supra [16]-[17]) the effect of the way the matter was put was that the jury were asked to infer that the appellant
had disposed of the phone because it contained a topless photo of the complainant, so that
disposal of the phone would be treated as indisputable evidence of guilt - accordingly, an
Edwards-type direction was required - considering whether the omission occasioned a
substantial miscarriage of justice (s6 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)): the relevant principles
identified and considered (Weiss v The Queen 224 CLR 300; Darkan v The Queen (2006) 227
CLR 373; Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47) - on the whole of the evidence, in
accordance with the principles in Weiss (supra), no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred the sentence was not manifestly excessive having regard to the objective seriousness of the
offending - the appellant, the complainant’s employer, was in a position of dominance and trust
and the sexual activity was forced upon the complainant; remorse was not demonstrated appeal against conviction & sentence dismissed [Editor’s note: In considering the judgment in
R v KNL 154 A Crim R 268, [42]-[43] Beazley P commented [102] that ‘I would not endorse that
reasoning, should it be intended to lay down some general principle of sentencing law in respect
of sexual offences’. At [113] Davies J stated that he did not express any view about the
correctness, or otherwise, of the reasoning in R v KNL].
DN
The Queen v Parry [2016] VSC 685
Supreme Court of Victoria
Beale J
Criminal law - murder - sentence - offender, with long history of drug use, but limited prior
convictions, believed the victim was responsible for a burglary of his house - in company he
then broke into the victim’s home and attacked him with a bat - victim produced a knife and
offender used it to fatally stab him - 21 stab wounds inflicted - offender on ‘ice’ at the time of
Page 5
the attack - held: offender’s original intention was not to commit murder, but to cause the victim
serious injury - once he seized the knife however, he acted with murderous intent - the offence
was a mid-range example of murder: offender took the law into his own hands, enlisted others
to assist him and, armed, entered the victim’s home, intending to inflict serious injury on him while offender was substance affected at the time of attack, that did not constitute a matter of
aggravation or mitigation - offender entitled to significant discount for early plea which
demonstrated remorse - reasonable prosects of rehabilitation - sentenced to 19 years, NPP 15
years (but for the plea, 23 years, NPP 18 years) - sentenced as a serious offender under s6D
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Parry
Waldon v The Queen [2016] VSCA 260
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Redlich & Kyrou JJA
Criminal law - sentence appeal - applicant pleaded guilty to 3 offences involving a child under
16: grooming for sexual conduct, act of indecency, possession of child pornography - applicant
was a youth worker with young adults with intellectual disabilities - complainant, who suffered
from autism and mild intellectual disability, was 14 and a student where the applicant worked applicant, who did not have a criminal record, offered no explanation for his offending, but was
immature and naïve, with a dependant and avoidant personality - total effective sentence 8
months imprisonment, plus 2 year Community Corrections Order (CCO), participation in sex
offenders program, 200 hours unpaid community work & registration on the sex offenders
register (s34 Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic)) - on appeal, argued double
punishment (grooming offence being treated as including the conduct relied upon for the other
charges), prospects of rehabilitation wrongly characterised as only ‘reasonable’ and sentence
manifestly excessive - held: even if the error of double punishment occurred, no lesser sentence
was warranted - the offending on charge 1 involved a degree of persistence and cruelty - the
sentencing judge’s conclusion that the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation were
‘reasonable’ was amply justified, the applicant having originally denied the events, having
sought to shift the blame to the victim and having minimised his conduct, which constituted an
‘egregious breach of trust’ - leave to appeal refused.
Waldon
R v Struber; R v Wilson-Struber [2016] QCA 288
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Margaret McMurdo P, Philippides JA & North J
Criminal law - murder - conviction appeal - the victim, with several others, was prospecting for
gold in Far North Queensland on the appellant’s remote cattle property - at the time of the
alleged murder the victim was alone in a gully when the appellants came across him - Struber
stopped his vehicle and Wilson-Struber alighted with a long firearm - the events over the next 30
Page 6
minutes remain obscure, however 2 shots were heard and the victim was not seen again - the
prosecution case was that one appellant either shot or incapacitated the victim, who was then
killed with the assistance of the other appellant - on appeal, each appellant argued that the
verdicts were unreasonable (s668E (1) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)) - Struber applied to adduce
further evidence, arguing that the new evidence demonstrated that a miscarriage of justice had
occurred - the new evidence concerned a witness who claimed he had spoken to a man driving
a vehicle with a body in it at the time of the murder - held: consideration of the ground that the
verdicts were unreasonable (s668E(1)) requires the Court to review the evidence at trial and
determine whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied on the evidence beyond reasonable
doubt of each appellant’s guilt (M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, 494-495) - here, the case
was left to the jury on the basis that they could convict if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
both appellants were criminally involved in the intentional killing of the victim, even though they
could not point precisely to who did what - there was ample evidence for the jury to conclude
that the victim was dead - the evidence in combination was capable of demonstrating a common
design by the appellants, with a concern about the impact of prospecting upon their property - to
convict, the jury had to conclude that this hypothesis was the only one reasonably open on the
evidence in respect of each appellant (see R v Baden-Clay (2016) 90 ALJR 1013) - it was open
on the evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only rational
hypothesis was that one or the other of the appellants killed the victim - in considering an
appeal where further evidence is sought to be adduced on appeal, there are 2 questions:
whether the court should receive the evidence and whether the evidence, if received and in
combination with the evidence adduced at trial, requires the conviction to be set aside to avoid a
miscarriage of justice (see Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125) - the evidence of the
witness seeing a man with a body in his vehicle does raise the real possibility that a man other
than Struber may have been involved in disposing of the body and in the killing - these were
questions for the jury - this was fresh evidence and it is against the public interest for a
conviction to stand if it is not based upon all relevant evidence, especially in a circumstantial
case such as this with evidential gaps - there was a significant possibility that if this evidence
had been adduced at trial the jury may have acquitted Struber - the application by Struber to
adduce further evidence granted - the evidence would not have assisted Wilson-Struber,
however - appeal allowed in the case of Struber, conviction set aside and new trial order Wilson-Struber’s appeal dismissed [Editor’s note: Philippides JA dissented on the application
by Struber to adduce further evidence].
Struber; Wilson-Struber
R v M, G [2016] SASCFC 116
Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Blue, Nicholson & Hinton JJ
Criminal law - appellant, who was 72 years old at the time of the offending, pleaded guilty to
offences of aggravated indecent assault and procuring an act of gross indecency (ss56,
58(1)(b) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)) - sentence imposed 3 years, 7 months, 1
week, NPP 18 months - complainant, who was 5 years at the time, was the daughter of
Page 7
appellant’s stepson - the sentencing judge incorrectly identified the maximum penalty for the
offence of procuring an act of gross indecency - DPP correctly conceded appeal should be
allowed and appellant resentenced - two issues for consideration: whether the hardship caused
to the appellant’s dependants by his imprisonment was a relevant matter on sentence and
whether the sentence should have been suspended - held: the offending was serious and
involved a gross breach of trust with significant ramifications - of fundamental importance in
considering the seriousness of the offending was the potential for long term psychological and
emotional damage to the victim (see R v D (1997) 69 SASR 413, 423; R v MJJ; R v CJN (2013)
117 SASR 81, [84]) - the gravity of the offending was exacerbated by the appellant’s threat to
the complainant to keep the offending a secret on pain of losing him as a friend - s10(1)(n)
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) directs the court to the probable effect any sentence
would have on dependants - the principles to be applied are considered in R v Constant [2016]
SASCFC 87 - the issue is whether the hardship occasioned to an offender’s family travels
beyond what is appropriate in securing the community’s welfare and protection - where it does,
it becomes special or uncommon, or exceptional - here, the appellant’s imprisonment would
occasion hardship to his wife but it would not lead to the loss of her home unless he was
imprisoned for a lengthy period of time, in which case the hardship would become exceptional on the issue of whether the sentence should be suspended, the gravity of the offending and its
consequences required imprisonment for a period that adequately punished him and deterred
others - the court must protect children - sentence of 2 years, NPP 9 months imposed [Editor’s
note: Nicholson J dissented on whether the sentence imposed should be suspended. The Court
also considered the relevance of sentence indications and plea bargaining].
M,G
Kere Kere v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 189
Court of Appeal of Western Australia
Buss P, Mazza JA
Criminal law - conviction & sentence appeal - applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully
causing grievous bodily harm under s297(1) Criminal Code 1913 (WA) - nightclub assault on
innocent bystander - applicant with criminal record in WA and Queensland for assaults applicant very aggressive - sentenced to 3 years - apart from the plea there was ‘not much in
the way of mitigation’ - injury not found to be in the more serious category, but was not trivial appellant argued sentence manifestly excessive - held: an appeal ground alleging that a
sentence is manifestly excessive asserts implied error - the discretion conferred on sentencing
judges is of fundamental importance (Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665, [15]) - in WA
the sentencing principles are set out in Part 2 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) - a fundamental
sentencing principle is that a sentence imposed must be commensurate with the `seriousness of
the offence’ (s6(1) Sentencing Act 1995; see also ss6(2), 7, 8) - authorities which have
considered offending against s297(1) referred to (see Trompler v The State of Western Australia
[2008] WASCA 265; The State of Western Australia v Taylor (2012) 226 A Crim R 308) - the
guidance afforded by comparable cases is flexible, rather than rigid - here, the appellant’s
offending was serious - the violence was gratuitous and senseless - the victim did not provoke
Page 8
the attack and was retreating - the victim required surgery - a sentence of 3 years was not
beyond the range - personal and general deterrence were of importance - appeal without merit leave refused - appeal dismissed.
Kere Kere
The State of Western Australia v Siddique [2016] WASC 358
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Jenkins J
Criminal law - murder - insanity - judge alone trial - accused, who suffered from schizophrenia,
stabbed victim and pleaded not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind - held: the general
legal principles relevant to a judge alone trial identified [14]-[25] - question to be considered:
whether accused had established, on the balance of probabilities, that he was not criminally
responsible for the killing of the deceased by reason of unsoundness of mind (mental illness) law of insanity and authorities considered: accused bears the onus of proof on the balance of
probabilities (R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182) - s27 Criminal Code 1913 (WA) must be satisfied phrases ‘mental impairment’ (s1 Criminal Code 1913), ‘an underlying pathological infirmity of
mind’ and ‘mental illness’ (R v Radford (1985) 20 A Crim R 388) referred to - s27 was amended
after the High Court’s decision in R v Falconer ((1990) 171 CLR 30) consistently with the
principles stated by King CJ in Radford (supra) - what is a mental illness is a question of law whether the facts disclose that the accused had a mental illness at the relevant time (i.e. when
the accused fatally stabbed the deceased) is a question of fact - the phrase ‘deprive him… of
capacity to control his actions’ (s27) is not defined in the Code, but it has been considered
in The State of Western Australia v Strabach ([2012] WASC 227) & The State of Western
Australia v Brown (No 3) ([2013] WASC 349, [44]) - the words in the phrase should be given
their ordinary meaning and the phrase should be narrowly construed - a lack of capacity to
control actions in s27 is the insane equivalent of sane involuntariness and so denotes an
incapacity to control actions, as opposed to something less than that, such as significantly
impaired capacity to resist an impulse or an emotion - the phrase is equivalent to the
M’Naghten rules alternative ((1843) 10 Cl & F 200) that the accused was labouring under such
a defect of reasons as ‘that he did not know that he was doing what was wrong’ - the leading
authority is Evans v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASC 34 - the question is whether
the accused’s mental condition was such that he was incapable of thinking in a rational way
(see Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358) - here, the psychiatric evidence
overwhelmingly supported the fact that at the time the accused killed the deceased he was
mentally impaired and suffering from a mental illness within the Code - he held paranoid and
delusional beliefs, including auditory hallucinations, that the deceased wanted to kill him - he
believed that what he was doing was morally right, even though he might have understood that
to kill was wrong - he probably believed that he was acting as the agent of God - there was
insufficient evidence to enable a conclusion as to whether his mental illness deprived him of the
capacity to understand what he was doing when he killed the deceased - he was not deprived of
the capacity to control his actions - applying Stapleton & Evans, on the balance of probabilities,
at the time the accused stabbed the deceased, he was in such a state of metal impairment as to
Page 9
deprive him of capacity to know that he ought not fatally stab the deceased - his mental state
prevented him from reasoning with any degree of rationality and clarity - he lacked the capacity
to ‘think rationally of the reasons that would lead ordinary people to consider’ his actions in
fatally stabbing the deceased ‘to be right or wrong’ - verdict: accused not guilty by reason of
mental illness - special verdict entered with custody order (s113(1) Criminal Procedure Act 2004
(WA); s21 Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA).
Siddique
Page 10
Theocritus: A Villanelle
By Oscar Wilde
O singer of Persephone!
In the dim meadows desolate
Dost thou remember Sicily?
Still through the ivy flits the bee
Where Amaryllis lies in state;
O Singer of Persephone!
Simaetha calls on Hecate
And hears the wild dogs at the gate;
Dost thou remember Sicily?
Still by the light and laughing sea
Poor Polypheme bemoans his fate;
O Singer of Persephone!
And still in boyish rivalry
Young Daphnis challenges his mate;
Dost thou remember Sicily?
Slim Lacon keeps a goat for thee,
For thee the jocund shepherds wait;
O Singer of Persephone!
Dost thou remember Sicily?
Click Here to access our Benchmark Search Engine
Page 11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)