AUSTIN -v- GRAPES & ORS [2004] WASCA 102
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 102 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1124/2003 | 6 MAY 2004 | |
| Coram: | SIMMONDS J | 18/05/04 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SONYA LEANNE AUSTIN KENNETH GRAPES JEFFREY EVAN TAYLOR MATTHEW HOLLAND ROBERT BANDY LAURENCE GREGORY BRADY |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Appeal against sentence imposed in Court of Petty Sessions Whether Magistrate applied the appropriate transitional period discount Whether Magistrate applied the appropriate discount for guilty plea Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Whether Magistrate erred in imposing custodial sentence without eligibility for parole |
Legislation: | Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA), s 378 Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA), s 19, s 43 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 89(4) Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA), Sch 1 |
Case References: | Auburn v Sears, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970508; 2 October 1997 Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665 Miles v R (1997) 17 WAR 518 Sheppard v Blakey [2001] WASCA 309 Williams v Franzinelli [2001] WASCA 241 Yanko v The Queen [2004] WASCA 37 Atholwood v R [2000] WASCA 76 Garlett (2000) 111 A Crim R 336 Hubbard v Fisher [2001] WASCA 182 R v Wongawol (1998) 101 A Crim R 350 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : AUSTIN -v- GRAPES & ORS [2004] WASCA 102 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 6 MAY 2004 DELIVERED : 18 MAY 2004 FILE NO/S : SJA 1124 of 2003 BETWEEN : SONYA LEANNE AUSTIN
- Appellant
AND
KENNETH GRAPES
First Respondent
JEFFREY EVAN TAYLOR
Second Respondent
MATTHEW HOLLAND
Third Respondent
ROBERT BANDY
Fourth Respondent
LAURENCE GREGORY BRADY
Fifth Respondent
(Page 2)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram : MR F CULLEN SM
File Number : PE 34832/03, PE 31340/03, PE 26154/03 & JO 54325/03
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Appeal against sentence imposed in Court of Petty Sessions - Whether Magistrate applied the appropriate transitional period discount - Whether Magistrate applied the appropriate discount for guilty plea - Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive - Whether Magistrate erred in imposing custodial sentence without eligibility for parole
Legislation:
Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA), s 378
Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA), s 19, s 43
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 89(4)
Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA), Sch 1
Result:
Appeal allowed
Category: B
(Page 3)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D J McKenzie
First Respondent : Mr R K Malhotra
Second Respondent : Mr R K Malhotra
Third Respondent : Mr R K Malhotra
Fourth Respondent : Mr R K Malhotra
Fifth Respondent : Mr R K Malhotra
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid of Western Australia
First Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Second Respondent : State Director of Public…
Continue reading Austin v Grapes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Austin v Grapes [2004] WASCA 102
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 102
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Austin v Grapes was heard in the appellate court where the appellant challenged the sentence imposed by the Court of Petty Sessions. The appellant, Austin, was convicted of an offence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment by the Magistrate. The appeal raised several issues concerning the appropriateness of the sentence, specifically whether the Magistrate applied the correct transitional period discount and the discount for a guilty plea, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the Magistrate erred in imposing a custodial sentence without eligibility for parole.
The court was required to examine if the Magistrate correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles and discounts. The transitional period discount was contested on the basis that the Magistrate may have misapplied the law regarding the timing of the offence in relation to sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the appellant argued that the discount for a guilty plea was not adequately applied. The court needed to determine if the sentence was within the bounds of what could be considered just and appropriate, considering the nature of the offence and the appellant's criminal history. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the imposition of a custodial sentence without eligibility for parole was an error on the part of the Magistrate.
The appellate court found that the Magistrate had indeed misapplied the transitional period discount, which had the effect of increasing the overall sentence. The court also determined that the discount for the guilty plea was not properly applied, which further exacerbated the sentencing error. Additionally, the court considered the sentence to be manifestly excessive, given the circumstances and the appellant's background. The court concluded that the Magistrate had erred in imposing a custodial sentence without eligibility for parole. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the Court of Petty Sessions was set aside.
The court was required to examine if the Magistrate correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles and discounts. The transitional period discount was contested on the basis that the Magistrate may have misapplied the law regarding the timing of the offence in relation to sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the appellant argued that the discount for a guilty plea was not adequately applied. The court needed to determine if the sentence was within the bounds of what could be considered just and appropriate, considering the nature of the offence and the appellant's criminal history. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the imposition of a custodial sentence without eligibility for parole was an error on the part of the Magistrate.
The appellate court found that the Magistrate had indeed misapplied the transitional period discount, which had the effect of increasing the overall sentence. The court also determined that the discount for the guilty plea was not properly applied, which further exacerbated the sentencing error. Additionally, the court considered the sentence to be manifestly excessive, given the circumstances and the appellant's background. The court concluded that the Magistrate had erred in imposing a custodial sentence without eligibility for parole. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the Court of Petty Sessions was set aside.
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.