Bates v Wheatley

Case [2000] WASCA 38


BATES -v- WHEATLEY [2000] WASCA 38



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2000] WASCA 38
Case No:SJA:1193/199918 JANUARY 2000
Coram:TEMPLEMAN J18/01/00
10Judgment 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
CITATION : BATES -v- WHEATLEY [2000] WASCA 38 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J HEARD : 18 JANUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 18 JANUARY 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1193 of 1999 BETWEEN : SONNY JAMES BATES
    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

Details
AGLC
Bates v Wheatley [2000] WASCA 38
Case
[2000] WASCA 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bates v Wheatley, the appellant, Mr. Bates, appealed against the sentence imposed by a Magistrate following his conviction for offences under s 401(2) of the Criminal Code and s 66(13) of the Police Act. The dispute centred on whether the sentence was excessively high, reflecting a mis-exercise of the Magistrate's discretion. The court had to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering both mitigating and aggravating factors, and whether the Magistrate's failure to expressly refer to the plea of guilty in his reasons meant that the plea was not adequately considered.

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.