AR -v- WOOD [2008] WASC 119
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 119 | |
| 18/06/2008 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1065/2007 | 22 MAY 2008 | |
| Coram: | EM HEENAN J | 22/05/08 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Fines reduced Spent conviction orders made | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | AR DAVID WOOD |
Catchwords: | Appeal Criminal law Sentence Fine and refusal of spent conviction order Disorderly conduct Carrying an article with intent to cause fear Refusal to permit appellant to visit wife in hospital when he was entitled to do so Argument with security staff Police called No immediate action taken Later arrested and charged Appeal allowed Fines reduced Spent conviction orders made |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA) Weapons Act 1999 (WA) |
Case References: | Bembridge v G-K-R Karate Australia Pty Ltd (Unreported WASC, Library No 980502, 8 September 1998) Canale v Bayens [2001] WASCA 383 Coates v National Trustees Executor & Agency Co Ltd [1956] HCA 23; (1956) 95 CLR 494 Cobiac v Liddy [1969] HCA 26; (1969) 119 CLR 257 Cornwell v The Queen [2007] HCA 12; (2007) 234 ALR 51 Furtak v Timmers [2001] WASCA 65 Greenfield v Edwardes [1987] WAR 207 Jones v McDonald (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980039, 6 February 1998) Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 Morrison v Behrooz [2005] SASC 142 Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297 Nguyen v The Queen [2001] WASCA 119 Pearce v Paskov [1968] WAR 66 R v Carter (1997) 91 A Crim R 222 R v Miceli [1998] 4 VR 588 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 Riley v Gill (Unreported, WASC, Library No 970731, 8 September 1997) Tambyrajah v Gablonski [2004] WASCA 105 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; 221 CLR 191 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
DAVID WOOD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE W G TARR
File No : PE 25817 of 2007, PE 25818 of 2007
Catchwords:
Appeal - Criminal law - Sentence - Fine and refusal of spent conviction order - Disorderly conduct - Carrying an article with intent to cause fear - Refusal to permit appellant to visit wife in hospital when he was entitled to do so - Argument with security staff - Police called - No immediate action taken - Later
(Page 2)
arrested and charged - Appeal allowed - Fines reduced - Spent conviction orders made
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA)
Weapons Act 1999 (WA)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Fines reduced
Spent conviction orders made
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant…
Continue reading AR v Wood
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- AR v Wood [2008] WASC 119
- Case
- [2008] WASC 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of AR v Wood, the appellant, AR, appealed against his conviction and sentence for disorderly conduct, carrying an article with intent to cause fear, and refusal to permit the appellant to visit his wife in hospital when he was entitled to do so. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. AR had been involved in an argument with security staff at a hospital, which led to the police being called. No immediate action was taken, but AR was later arrested and charged. AR appealed against his conviction and sentence on the grounds of the inadequacy of the sentence and the refusal to make spent conviction orders.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and whether the refusal to make spent conviction orders was correct. The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court also considered the appellant's arguments regarding the refusal to make spent conviction orders.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and did not take into account all the relevant factors. The court also found that the refusal to make spent conviction orders was incorrect. The court allowed the appeal, reduced the fines imposed, and made spent conviction orders in respect of the convictions. The court held that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences, but also take into account the appellant's personal circumstances and the need to deter future offending. The court held that spent conviction orders should be made in respect of the convictions to reflect the appellant's rehabilitation and the fact that the convictions were not recent or serious.
The appeal was allowed, the fines were reduced, and spent conviction orders were made in respect of the convictions.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and whether the refusal to make spent conviction orders was correct. The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court also considered the appellant's arguments regarding the refusal to make spent conviction orders.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and did not take into account all the relevant factors. The court also found that the refusal to make spent conviction orders was incorrect. The court allowed the appeal, reduced the fines imposed, and made spent conviction orders in respect of the convictions. The court held that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences, but also take into account the appellant's personal circumstances and the need to deter future offending. The court held that spent conviction orders should be made in respect of the convictions to reflect the appellant's rehabilitation and the fact that the convictions were not recent or serious.
The appeal was allowed, the fines were reduced, and spent conviction orders were made in respect of the convictions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Fines reduced
Spent conviction orders made
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.