Legal Research
Cases
Boase v Roberts

Boase v Roberts

Case [2018] WASC 45 9 February 2018

Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Totality Principle

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: BOASE -v- ROBERTS [2018] WASC 45

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 12 DECEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 12 DECEMBER 2017

PUBLISHED : 9 FEBRUARY 2018

FILE NO/S: SJA 1048 of 2017

BETWEEN: MARK CHRISTOPHER BOASE
Appellant
AND
ALYCE ROBERTS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE S DE MAIO
File No  :FR 2032 of 2017, FR 2035 of 2017, FR 2039 - 2040 of 2017, FR 2042 of 2017, FR 2889 of 2017, FR 2892 of 2017, FR 2894 - 2896 of 2017, FR 2898 of 2017, FR 2902 of 2017, FR 2904 of 2017, FR 2906 of 2017, FR 2908 of 2017, FR 2910 of 2017, FR 2912 of 2017, FR 2914 of 2017, FR 2916 of 2017, FR 2918 of 2017, FR 2920 - 2921 of 2017, FR 2923 of 2017, FR 2925 - 2927 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Multiple burglary offences - Commercial premises - Stealing of cars - Aggravated reckless driving to escape police pursuit - Totality principle -Whether total aggregate sentence of 4 years' imprisonment infringed totality principle

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms K C Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Anderson v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 167
BWE v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 197
Closter v Humphreys [2012] WASC 145
Fraser v The Queen [2003] WASCA 99
Hume v The Queen [2000] WASCA 306; (2000) 33 MVR 203
Kolek v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 180
Nolan v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 235
Pennetta v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 234
Ridley v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 45
Rodenburg‑Hill v WA Police [2009] WASC 330
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Tela v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 103
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82

HALL J: This application for leave to appeal against sentence was heard by me on 12 December 2017. At the conclusion of the hearing I refused leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal and gave brief oral reasons. I said that more detailed written reasons would be provided at a later date.
On 21 July 2017, the appellant was sentenced in the Fremantle Magistrates Court to a total effective sentence of 4 years' imprisonment in respect of 46 offences. The nature of those offences and the individual sentences imposed are set out in the table which is annexed to these reasons.
By an appeal notice filed on 22 August 2017, the appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The appeal notice was filed four days late. The appellant was unable to obtain legal aid and represented himself in the appeal. In the circumstances…

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 Boase v Roberts

Details

AGLC: Boase v Roberts [2018] WASC 45
Case: [2018] WASC 45
Decision Date: 9 FEBRUARY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Boase v Roberts, the respondent, Boase, appealed against the total aggregate sentence of four years' imprisonment, which was imposed on him for various criminal offences, including multiple burglaries of commercial premises, theft of cars, and aggravated reckless driving while attempting to evade police. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Boase argued that the sentence imposed infringed the totality principle, which requires that the overall punishment should not be grossly disproportionate to the aggregate gravity of the individual offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the total aggregate sentence imposed on Boase for his multiple criminal offences was consistent with the totality principle. This principle is designed to ensure that the overall punishment does not exceed what is proportionate to the cumulative severity of the individual offences. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of each offence, as well as the cumulative effect of the sentence on Boase, in determining whether the totality principle was breached.

The court held that the totality principle had not been infringed by the sentence imposed. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the aggregate gravity of the offences committed by Boase. The court considered the severity of each offence, the frequency of the offending behaviour, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also took into account Boase's criminal history and the need for denunciation and rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not exceed what was proportionate to the cumulative effect of the individual offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No additional orders were made by the court.

Orders