BATES -v- WHEATLEY [2000] WASCA 38
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 38 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1193/1999 | 18 JANUARY 2000 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J | 18/01/00 | |
| 10 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SONNY JAMES BATES WARREN SEAN WHEATLEY |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Property offences Appeal from Magistrate Appeal against sentence imposed by Magistrate following guilty plea to offences arising from s 401(2) Criminal Code and s 66(13) Police Act Whether sentence imposed was so manifestly excessive as to suggest a mis-exercise of the Magistate's discretion Consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances Whether the Magistrate's failure to expressly refer to the plea of guilty in his reasons reflects a failure on his part to take it into account |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 401(2) Police Act, s 66(13) Sentencing Act, s 8(2) |
Case References: | Fisher v The Queen [1999] WASCA 122 Holland v R [1999 WASCA 43 Little v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970041; 3 February 1997 R v Thompson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940311; 21 June 1994 Australian Coal & Shale Employees Union v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Cheshire v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7924; 7 November 1989 Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220; 53 A Crim R 248 Heferen v R (1999) 106 A Crim R 89 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Miles v R (1997) 17 WAR 518 Nguyen v R; Tran v R [1999] WASCA 54 Pavlic (1995) 5 Tas R 186; 83 A Crim R 13 Pezzino v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 135 R v Doyle (1994) 71 A Crim R 360 R v Tait (1976) 46 FLR 386 Thorburn v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7866; 27 September 1989 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
WARREN SEAN WHEATLEY
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Property offences - Appeal from Magistrate - Appeal against sentence imposed by Magistrate following guilty plea to offences arising from s 401(2) Criminal Code and s 66(13) Police Act - Whether sentence imposed was so manifestly excessive as to suggest a mis-exercise of the Magistate's discretion - Consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances - Whether the Magistrate's failure to expressly refer to the plea of guilty in his reasons reflects a failure on his part to take it into account
Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 401(2)
Police Act, s 66(13)
Sentencing Act, s 8(2)
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms V E Williams
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent :…
Continue reading Bates v Wheatley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bates v Wheatley [2000] WASCA 38
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues involved evaluating the appropriate sentence for the given offences and whether the sentence imposed was within the bounds of judicial discretion. It was also necessary to assess whether the Magistrate failed to properly account for the plea of guilty in his sentencing decision. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence imposed was so disproportionate that it indicated a serious error in judicial process, and if the Magistrate's omission to reference the plea of guilty in his reasons indicated a disregard for this significant factor.
The court examined the Magistrate's sentencing decision, noting that while the sentence was severe, it was not so excessive as to constitute a manifest error. The court acknowledged the presence of both mitigating and aggravating circumstances but found that the Magistrate's overall assessment was reasonable. The omission of an express reference to the plea of guilty in the reasons did not, in the court's view, detract from the fairness or appropriateness of the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the court found no grounds to interfere with the Magistrate's exercise of discretion.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.