ANGLESEY -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 194

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 194
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:138/2001	Heard:	20 JUNE 2002
Coram:	MURRAY J STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	20/06/02
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MALCOLM ANGLESEY THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Effect of parole eligibility on 2 year sentence to be served cumulatively on 6 year sentence imposed previously
Legislation:	Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 689(3) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 94
Case References:	Nil Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Bakhos (1989) 39 A Crim R 174 R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459 R v Harrison (1990) 48 A Crim R 197 R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ANGLESEY -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 194 CORAM : MURRAY J

STEYTLER J

TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD : 20 JUNE 2002 DELIVERED : 20 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 138 of 2001 BETWEEN : MALCOLM ANGLESEY

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Effect of parole eligibility on 2 year sentence to be served cumulatively on 6 year sentence imposed previously

Legislation:

Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 689(3)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 94

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms K J Farley

Respondent : Mr K P Bates

Solicitors:

Appellant : Unrepresented Criminal Appellants' Scheme

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Bakhos (1989) 39 A Crim R 174
R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
R v Harrison (1990) 48 A Crim R 197
R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159

(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on Malcolm Anglesey by his Honour Chief Judge Hammond in the District Court on 14 August 2001. The applicant came before his Honour on a charge of aggravated stalking to which he pleaded guilty. He had previously been sentenced by Judge O'Sullivan in the District Court to a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment with parole eligibility. That sentence was imposed on 20 July 2000. The 6-year term was made up of a 4-year sentence of imprisonment for aggravated burglary and 2 years in relation to a number of other charges to which the applicant had pleaded guilty and were the subject of a s 32 notice.

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 Anglesey v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Anglesey v The Queen [2002] WASCA 194
Case: [2002] WASCA 194
Decision Date: 20 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Anglesey v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant, Anglesey, had been sentenced to two years imprisonment to be served cumulatively with a six-year sentence already being served. The crux of the appeal was the impact of parole eligibility on the two-year sentence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the two-year sentence should be subject to parole eligibility, considering it was to be served cumulatively with the existing six-year sentence. The court was tasked with interpreting relevant statutory provisions and determining the effect of parole eligibility on sentences served cumulatively. The appellant argued that the two-year sentence should be treated as a separate entity for parole eligibility purposes, while the respondent, The Queen, contended that the cumulative nature of the sentences meant parole eligibility should be assessed based on the aggregate term.

The court, in its reasoning, held that the two-year sentence should not be considered separately for parole eligibility. It found that the cumulative nature of the sentences dictated that parole eligibility would be assessed based on the total term, including both the new and existing sentences. This interpretation was consistent with the statutory framework and aimed to ensure uniformity and predictability in the sentencing process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.