"A" -v- RAY [2001] WASCA 340
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 340 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1109/2001 | 11 OCTOBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 2/11/01 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CHRISTOPHER ANDREW JACK MATTHEW ROBERT RAY |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Stealing as a servant Youthful offender Property of little value Whether spent conviction order appropriate Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 378(7), s 426 Justices Act 1902, s 196, s 199 Sentencing Act 1995, s 6, s 39, s 45(1), s 76(3), s 87, s 89, s 93 Spent Convictions Act 1988 |
Case References: | Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65 Bacich v Illich [2000] WASCA 133 Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998 Cunningham v Walsh [2000] WASCA 201 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315 Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327 Griekspoor v Scott (2000) 23 WAR 530 Harling (1997) 94 A Crim R 437 Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246 Nebro v Duxbury [2000] WASCA 171 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Pennings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172 Pledge v Davey [2000] WASCA 20 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Holder & Johnston (1983) 13 A Crim R 375 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Ratcliff v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980651; 3 November 1998 Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66 Shooter v R (1997) A Crim R 581 Smith v "C" [2001] WASCA 262 Swain v R (1989) 41 A Crim R 214 Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999 Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561 Wangawol (1998) 101 A Crim R 350 Wilkinson (1996) 85 A Crim R 353 Furtak v Timmers [2001] WASCA 65 Game v Whitehead [2000] WASCA 50 Wilson v Crock [1999] WASCA 251 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : "A" -v- RAY [2001] WASCA 340 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 11 OCTOBER 2001 DELIVERED : 2 NOVEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1109 of 2001 BETWEEN : "A"
- Appellant
AND
MATTHEW ROBERT RAY
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Stealing as a servant - Youthful offender - Property of little value - Whether spent conviction order appropriate - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 378(7), s 426
Justices Act 1902, s 196, s 199
Sentencing Act 1995, s 6, s 39, s 45(1), s 76(3), s 87, s 89, s 93
Spent Convictions Act 1988
Result:
Appeal…
Continue reading A v Ray
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- A v Ray [2001] WASCA 340
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 340
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of A v Ray was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, A, appealed against a sentence imposed on him after being convicted of stealing while acting as a servant. The stolen property was of relatively minor value. The respondent, Ray, was the person who imposed the sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was appropriate, with particular attention to the imposition of a spent conviction order.
The central legal issue was whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, particularly considering the appellant's age and the relatively minor value of the stolen property. The court was required to assess the proportionality and fairness of the sentence, taking into account the principles of sentencing for youthful offenders. Additionally, the court had to determine if the imposition of a spent conviction order was appropriate given the specific facts of the case.
The court found that the sentence imposed was not appropriate in light of the circumstances. The court noted that the appellant was a youthful offender and the stolen property was of little value. The court considered that a more lenient sentence would have been appropriate, taking into account the appellant's age and the minor nature of the theft. Furthermore, the court found that the imposition of a spent conviction order was not suitable given the facts of the case. The appeal was allowed based on these findings.
The central legal issue was whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, particularly considering the appellant's age and the relatively minor value of the stolen property. The court was required to assess the proportionality and fairness of the sentence, taking into account the principles of sentencing for youthful offenders. Additionally, the court had to determine if the imposition of a spent conviction order was appropriate given the specific facts of the case.
The court found that the sentence imposed was not appropriate in light of the circumstances. The court noted that the appellant was a youthful offender and the stolen property was of little value. The court considered that a more lenient sentence would have been appropriate, taking into account the appellant's age and the minor nature of the theft. Furthermore, the court found that the imposition of a spent conviction order was not suitable given the facts of the case. The appeal was allowed based on these findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.