BEKINK -v- R [1999] WASCA 160
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 160 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:95/1999 | 12 AUGUST 1999 | |
| Coram: | IPP J ANDERSON J HEENAN J | 2/09/99 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WILLEM JOHANNES BEKINK THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Offender subject to "restricted management regime" in prison Shortage of beds within prison system Involvement in regime purely fortuitous Circumstance not known to sentencing Judge Intervention by appellate court not appropriate |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Anderson v The Queen (1997) 92 A Crim R 348 Astill (No 2) (1992) 64 A Crim R 289 Bailey v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 35 A Crim R 458 Bailey v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 62 ALJR 319 Eliasen v The Queen (1991) 53 A Crim R 391 Juli (1990) 50 A Crim R 31 Krakouer v The Queen [1999] WASCA 147 O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Boon, unreported; CCA of NSW; 17 November 1983 R v Eliasen (1991) 53 A Crim R 391 R v Perez-Vargas (1986) 8 NSWLR 559 R v Rostom [1996] 2 VR 97 R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 R v Todd (1976) Qd R 21 R v Vachalec (1981) 1 NSWLR 351 R v Williams, unreported; CCA SCt of Vic; Library No BC9503957; 18 September 1995 Davies and Gorman v The Queen (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 319 Many v The Queen (1990) 51 A Crim R 54 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BEKINK -v- R [1999] WASCA 160 CORAM : IPP J
- ANDERSON J
HEENAN J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Offender subject to "restricted management regime" in prison - Shortage of beds within prison system - Involvement in regime purely fortuitous - Circumstance not known to sentencing Judge - Intervention by appellate court not appropriate
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application for leave to appeal refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr L M Levy
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms V A Prentice
Solicitors:
Applicant : Pryles & Defteros
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Anderson v The Queen (1997) 92 A Crim R 348
Astill (No 2) (1992) 64 A Crim R 289
Bailey v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 35 A Crim R 458
Bailey v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 62 ALJR 319
Eliasen v The Queen (1991) 53 A Crim R 391
Juli (1990) 50 A Crim R 31
Krakouer v The Queen [1999] WASCA 147
O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of…
Continue reading Bekink v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bekink v The Queen [1999] WASCA 160
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 160
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Bekink versus The Queen, the High Court of Australia considered the appeal of the defendant against his sentencing. Bekink had been sentenced for a criminal offence and was placed under a restricted management regime in prison due to the shortage of available beds. This placement was purely coincidental, and Bekink's involvement in the regime was not known to the sentencing judge at the time of the original sentence. The central issue before the Court was whether the appellate court should intervene in the sentence given these circumstances.
The Court examined the role of the appellate court in criminal sentencing and determined that the intervention in this case was not warranted. The Court held that the sentencing judge had not been aware of the specific circumstances regarding the restricted management regime, and thus, the placement of Bekink in this regime was not a factor considered during sentencing. Given that the placement was fortuitous and not known to the sentencing judge, the Court concluded that the appellate court should not intervene to alter the sentence. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the independence of sentencing decisions and the limited role of appellate courts in reviewing such decisions.
As a result of the Court's reasoning, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The original sentence imposed on Bekink was upheld, and no changes were made to his sentence. The Court's decision underscored the principle that appellate intervention in sentencing should be reserved for cases where there has been a clear error in the application of legal principles or a significant procedural irregularity.
The Court examined the role of the appellate court in criminal sentencing and determined that the intervention in this case was not warranted. The Court held that the sentencing judge had not been aware of the specific circumstances regarding the restricted management regime, and thus, the placement of Bekink in this regime was not a factor considered during sentencing. Given that the placement was fortuitous and not known to the sentencing judge, the Court concluded that the appellate court should not intervene to alter the sentence. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the independence of sentencing decisions and the limited role of appellate courts in reviewing such decisions.
As a result of the Court's reasoning, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The original sentence imposed on Bekink was upheld, and no changes were made to his sentence. The Court's decision underscored the principle that appellate intervention in sentencing should be reserved for cases where there has been a clear error in the application of legal principles or a significant procedural irregularity.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for 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.