Legal Research
Cases
Bell v Carrier

Bell v Carrier

Case [2018] WASC 169 7 June 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   BELL -v- CARRIER [2018] WASC 169
CORAM:   CORBOY J
HEARD:   30 MAY 2018
DELIVERED          :   30 MAY 2018
PUBLISHED           :   7 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1031 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CHARLENE HOPE BELL
Appellant

AND

PAUL CARRIER
First Respondent

LESLIE SMITH
Second Respondent

ALEKSANDER STANOJEVIC
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE E SHACKLETON
File Number             :   BU 920 of 2017, BU 921 of 2017, BU 2101 of 2017, BU 3955 of 2017, BU 5458 of 2017, BU 5528 of 2017, BU 5529 of 2017, BU 5530 of 2017, BU 5753 of 2017, BU 5944 of 2017, BU 5945 of 2017, BU 6034 of 2017, BU 6203 of 2017, BU 6204 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Whether sentencing magistrate failed to take into account pleas of guilty - Whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice - Sentence of imprisonment imposed for a burglary offence in the least serious category of cases

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2)
Criminal Code (WA), s 401(2)(c)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 41(2)

Result:

Leave to extend time within which to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Appellant resentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms N Sinton
First Respondent	:	Ms KC Cook
Second Respondent	:	Ms KC Cook
Third Respondent	:	Ms KC Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid WA
First Respondent	:	The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia
Second Respondent	:	The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia
Third Respondent	:	The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Abeyakoon v Brown [2011] WASCA 63; (2011) 211 A Crim R 338
Boase v Roberts [2018] WASC 45
Burrows v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 147
Butler v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 249
Closter v Humphreys [2012] WASC 145
Miller v Byrne [2016] WASC 236
Nannup v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 257
Ridley v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 45
Wallam v Dent [2008] WASC 170
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82

CORBOY J:

The appeal and the result

The appellant was convicted on her plea of 13 charges for which the following penalties were imposed:

Offence

Penalty

Stealing (following breach of suspended sentence imposed on 1 July 2017)

6 months 1 day cumulative

Breach of bail undertaking

1 month concurrent

Burglary with intent in a place

12 months (head sentence)

8 x stealing

Global fine $3,000

Trespass

1 month concurrent

No authority to drive

$1,000 fine

Total effective sentence

18 months 1 day

The terms of imprisonment were ordered to commence on 15 November 2017 and to be immediately served.
The appellant appealed from the sentences imposed for the burglary, trespass and breach of bail offences. The sole ground of appeal was that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bell v Carrier

Details

AGLC: Bell v Carrier [2018] WASC 169
Case: [2018] WASC 169
Decision Date: 7 JUNE 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bell, appealed against his sentence for a burglary offence, arguing that the sentencing magistrate did not adequately consider his pleas of guilty. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where Bell contested the imposition of a custodial sentence despite his admissions of guilt. The appeal sought to determine whether the magistrate's failure to appropriately weigh the pleas of guilty resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue addressed by the court was whether the sentencing magistrate had correctly applied the principles governing the consideration of pleas of guilty in the context of sentencing. The court examined whether the magistrate had sufficiently recognised and given weight to Bell's admissions of guilt, particularly given that the offence fell into the least serious category of burglary cases. This involved a review of the sentencing principles outlined in relevant statutory provisions and case law to ascertain if the sentence imposed was proportionate and just.

The court found that the sentencing magistrate had failed to appropriately acknowledge the significance of Bell's pleas of guilty. Despite the offence being categorised as less serious, the court held that the magistrate's oversight in not adequately considering the pleas of guilty led to a sentence that was more severe than it should have been. Consequently, the court determined that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, warranting a reduction in the sentence. The appeal was thus allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for resentencing.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal and the remitting of the case to the Magistrates Court for the purpose of resentencing, with explicit instructions that the magistrate must take into account Bell's pleas of guilty appropriately. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to sentencing principles, particularly in cases involving pleas of guilty, to ensure that justice is served and sentences are proportionate.

Orders