Abdullah v The Queen - [2002] WASCA 57

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: ABDULLAH -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 57

CORAM: MURRAY J
STEYTLER J
HASLUCK J

HEARD: 11 MARCH 2002

DELIVERED : 11 MARCH 2002

FILE NO/S: CCA 93 of 2001

BETWEEN: ANGUS BERNARD ABDULLAH
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Parole eligibility - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr C L J Miocevich
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Garlett v The Queen (2000) 111 A Crim R 336; [2000] WASCA 72
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Thompson v The Queen (1993) 8 WAR 387

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

STEYTLER J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.
On 6 June 2001 the applicant was convicted on his own confession of one count of armed robbery with violence and one count of unlawful wounding. On the same day he was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for the armed robbery and to a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively, for the unlawful wounding, making a total effective sentence of 6 years' imprisonment.
A suspended sentence had earlier been imposed on the applicant on 21 September 2001 in respect of two prior offences committed by him. The applicant was resentenced in respect of those offences. He was ordered to serve a period of 6 months' imprisonment on a charge of assaulting a police officer and one of 4 months' imprisonment on a charge of breach of bail. Those sentences were made concurrent with each other and with the sentence imposed in respect of the armed robbery. The sentence for the armed robbery was directed to take effect from 30 March 2001 (on which date the applicant had been taken into custody). The applicant was not made eligible for parole.
There is only one ground which the applicant seeks to advance by way of appeal and that is that the learned sentencing Judge erred in the exercise of his discretion by failing to order that the applicant be eligible for parole in respect of the sentences imposed upon him.
Counsel for the applicant contends that there were three factors which pointed positively towards parole and should have led to the applicant being declared to be eligible for parole.
The first was the applicant's fast-track plea of guilty and what was said to be his genuine remorse in respect of his offending.
The second was what was said to be the applicant's insight into his substance abuse and his resolve to remain drug free. We were referred, in this respect, to the summary which concludes a pre‑sentence report prepared in respect of the applicant on 31 May 2001. That summary reads as follows:
"Despite his long history of poly drug abuse, … [the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abdullah v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Abdullah v The Queen [2002] WASCA 57
Case: [2002] WASCA 57
Decision Date: 11 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abdullah v The Queen dealt with the issue of sentencing and parole eligibility in a criminal context. The defendant, Abdullah, was before the court following his conviction for a serious crime. The primary focus of the proceedings was on the determination of his eligibility for parole. The appeal against his sentencing was heard by the court, which was tasked with evaluating the circumstances surrounding the crime and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation.

The court was required to address several legal issues, most notably whether the original sentencing decision appropriately balanced the severity of the crime with the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. A key aspect of this evaluation was the assessment of parole eligibility, which hinged on Abdullah's individual circumstances and his demonstrated capacity for reform. The court needed to determine if the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and whether the sentence imposed was just and appropriate in light of the statutory requirements and sentencing guidelines.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence presented regarding Abdullah's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and his behaviour since the conviction. The court considered the trial judge's findings and the submissions made by both parties. Ultimately, the court concluded that the original sentencing decision adequately reflected the principles of justice and proportionality, and that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the factors pertinent to parole eligibility. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence and parole eligibility determination were upheld.

The final orders of the court confirmed that Abdullah's appeal was unsuccessful and that the original sentencing and parole eligibility determinations remained in place. The court's decision underscored the importance of a comprehensive and balanced approach to sentencing in criminal cases, ensuring that both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender are thoroughly considered.

Orders