Boase v The State of Western Australia
[2018] WASCA 93
•19 JUNE 2018
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: BOASE -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2018] WASCA 93
CORAM: MAZZA JA
BEECH JA
HEARD: 8 JUNE 2018
DELIVERED : 19 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S: CACR 34 of 2018
BETWEEN: MARK CHRISTOPHER BOASE
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: JENKINS J
File Number : INS 243 of 2017
Catchwords:
Criminal law and sentencing - Appellant serving total effective sentence of 4 years' immediate imprisonment for six‑week crime spree involving numerous burglary, stealing and driving offences - Whether sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for offences of criminal damage by fire, burglary and stealing cumulative on the 4‑year term for other offences during the same six‑week period infringed the totality principle
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | No appearance |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Boase v Roberts [2018] WASC 45
Fraser v The Queen [2003] WASCA 99
Hume v The Queen [2000] WASCA 306; (2000) 33 MVR 203
McColl v Roberts [2014] WASC 300
McLaughlin v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 204; (2012) 224 A Crim R 134
Mogridge v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 205
Morcom v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 31
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Newport v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 224
Newton v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 247
Ridley v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 45
Rimington v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 102
Tela v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 103
The State of Western Australia v Bennett [2009] WASCA 93; (2009) 194 A Crim R 137
The State of Western Australia v Boase [2017] WASCSR 181
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
Introduction
The appellant seeks leave to appeal against a total effective sentence of 18 months' immediate imprisonment, made cumulative on terms of imprisonment totalling 4 years which the appellant was already serving. The appellant contends that, when account is taken of the 4‑year term, the additional term of 18 months infringed the totality principle.
In our opinion, the sole ground of appeal has no reasonable prospects of succeeding. Consequently, leave to appeal must be refused and the appeal dismissed.
The facts
The facts are not, and were not, in dispute.[1]
[1] The following summary is taken from the sentencing remarks: The State of Western Australia v Boase [2017] WASCSR 181 [2] ‑ [7].
On the weekend of 20 to 23 January 2017, the appellant used a tool to cut the padlock securing the gates at the Town of Cambridge depot in Shenton Park. Once inside the depot, he used a key to start a Holden Colorado truck which he then drove away from the premises. Those facts constitute the facts of the burglary and stealing a motor vehicle offences.
The appellant fitted the vehicle with different number plates at different times, using it to commit a number of serious offences during a crime spree in January and February 2017 for which he was sentenced in the Magistrates Court, and to which further reference is made below.
Count 3, the offence of criminal damage by fire, occurred in the following circumstances. Just before midnight on 21 February 2017, the appellant was driving the Colorado truck and became involved in a police pursuit. At that time the vehicle had stolen number plates on it. The appellant drove the stolen vehicle into bushland in an attempt to escape from the police. The vehicle became bogged. The appellant used alcohol as an accelerant, setting fire to the vehicle. He did this in order to destroy any forensic evidence which might link him to the vehicle.
Once the vehicle was on fire, the appellant left. The vehicle was subsequently found by the police.
The appellant was arrested on 23 February 2017 and interviewed by the police. He admitted stealing the vehicle, but denied setting it on fire or being involved in the police pursuit.
The related offences
As we have said, in a six‑week period in January and February 2017, the appellant engaged in a crime spree. His offences during that period included 10 burglaries, five aggravated burglaries, three offences of stealing motor vehicles, two offences of reckless driving to escape police pursuit, five offences of possession of stolen and unlawfully obtained property and a number of other offences. A table summarising the detail of the appellant's offences is at Appendix 1 to these reasons.
The appellant appealed against the total effective sentence of 4 years' immediate imprisonment imposed in relation to these offences. Leave to appeal was refused.[2]
[2] Boase v Roberts [2018] WASC 45.
The facts of the offending were outlined by Hall J as follows:[3]
[3] Boase v Roberts [6] ‑ [16].
On 14 January 2017, the appellant went to commercial premises in Henderson. He cut the chain from a gate in order to enter a yard and then forced entry to a donga containing various tools and work items. He stole property to the value of $6,600 and left the scene.
On 10 February 2017, police executed a search warrant and located various items in the possession of the appellant that were reasonably suspected to have been stolen. The property included tools and equipment stolen from two different premises at an earlier time. The two groups of property had a value of $8,991 and $43,573.74 respectively.
In the early hours of the morning of 15 February 2017, the appellant drove a vehicle to an automatic carwash facility. He used a grinder to grind the locks off a coin machine. He then forced the machine open with a crowbar and stole approximately $14. He was charged with criminal damage and stealing in respect of this incident.
In the early hours of the morning of 17 February 2017, the appellant went to a delicatessen in Baldivis. He smashed the front glass panel, reached inside and unlocked the door. Once inside, he used a grinder to remove a lock securing a cabinet containing cigarettes. He stole cigarettes to the value of $300.
In the early hours of the morning of 18 February 2017, the appellant, in company with another, attended a commercial premises in Jandakot. He used a grinder to remove the lock from the front gate and gained entry to a yard. He then forced open a rear loading door to gain access to a shop. He stole items including two laptops and cash to a total value of $1,300. There was also an unsuccessful attempt to grind off the hinges of a safe.
In the early hours of the morning of 20 February 2017, the appellant was again in company with another when he attended a shopping complex in North Coogee. He smashed the front glass window of a fish and chip shop, reached inside and unlocked the door. Once inside he stole a till containing approximately $300 in cash. He then moved on to another shop in the same shopping centre and again smashed glass in order to obtain entry. At the second premises he also stole a till containing cash, on this occasion approximately $250. He then moved to a third shop, which he entered by the same means and stole a further $250 in cash. Shortly after, he moved on to a Domino's Pizza store in Baldivis. He again smashed the front window, reached inside and unlocked the door. Once inside he stole cash to the value of $30. He then moved on to a curtain shop in Yangebup. After obtaining entry to the premises, he stole an air compressor, a vacuum and measuring tape to the total value of $430. He then went to another business premises in Yangebup and smashed a hole in the front window in order to gain entry. Once inside, he stole items to a total value of $7,000.
On the evening of 21 February 2017, the appellant was driving a stolen vehicle on a dirt track in Yangebup. He had earlier been sighted by police at the scene of the last two burglaries referred to. Officers in a police vehicle saw the appellant driving the stolen car and activated their emergency lights and sirens. He failed to stop and travelled at approximately 100 km per hour in a westerly direction on Beeliar Drive in Yangebup. He then turned onto Rockingham Road and reached speeds of up to 80 km per hour before turning onto Stock Road. Police continued the pursuit and a 'stinger' device was deployed. The appellant then drove the vehicle into bushland near Wattleup Road and police lost sight of him. The vehicle he was driving was later found burnt out.
Just after midnight on 22 February 2017, the appellant attended a store in George Street, East Fremantle. He smashed a hole in the front glass window, reached inside and unlocked the door. He was seen by a member of the public who called out. He left the premises, got into a vehicle and drove away without stealing any property. [He] then drove to commercial premises in South Fremantle and smashed a window to gain entry. Once inside, he stole the cash till containing approximately $400 in cash. He then drove to a coffee merchant store in O'Connor. He forced the bolt locks of a side door of the premises to gain entry to a warehouse. Inside he stole cash and a laptop computer to a total value of $1,011. Approximately two to three hours later, the appellant attended at a car servicing business in Canning Vale. He forced entry to the premises through a roller door and cut through a padlock. Once inside, he stole items including tyres, tools and helmets and other items to a total value of $6,647.
On 23 February 2017, the appellant was apprehended and found in possession of various items of property that had been stolen as a result of burglaries conducted at an earlier time. They included a compressor, a drill and a blower than had been stolen from the South Fremantle High School, power tools and computer equipment that were reasonably believed to have been stolen and six vehicle registration plates that had also been stolen. The circumstances of his apprehension will be referred to shortly.
In the six‑week period between 14 January 2017 and 23 February 2017, the appellant had stolen a number of motor vehicles. This included a Honda motorcycle stolen on 16 January 2017, a Kawasaki motorcycle stolen on 10 February 2017 and a Holden Colorado utility stolen on 18 February 2017. He also stole registration plates from a number of vehicles.
At about 4.00 pm on 23 February 2017, the appellant was driving the stolen white Holden utility on Forrest Road in Hamilton Hill. The vehicle was displaying false plates. Police attempted to stop the appellant's vehicle by activating their emergency lights and sirens. He began to slow and appeared to be stopping. However, he continued along Forrest Road for approximately 150 m and turned left into Blackwood Avenue. He mounted the kerb and drove into bushland, proceeding in a westerly direction. Police de‑activated their lights and sirens and continued to patrol the area. The appellant was then observed driving north along Hamilton Road in Spearwood. Police again attempted to stop him by activating their lights and sirens. He immediately crossed the centre line markings on the road, thereby crossing in front of oncoming traffic. He mounted the kerb on the opposite side of the road before heading east along Spearwood Avenue towards an intersection. The intersection was busy with other cars, who were put at risk. He then drove along the footpath on the wrong side of Spearwood Avenue before crossing oncoming traffic lanes and back to the correct side of the road. He accelerated to a high speed, estimated to be approximately 100 km per hour, in a 60 km per hour zone. A short time later he was traced to his home address in Spearwood. When police arrived the appellant fled the scene, jumping over a number of fences as he did so.
In refusing leave to appeal, Hall J said as follows:[4]
The appellant's offending was clearly serious. It included 10 burglaries and five aggravated burglaries on business premises, three offences of stealing motor vehicles and two offences of stealing motor vehicles and driving recklessly to escape police pursuit. The magistrate was undoubtedly correct in characterising the offending as a spree that involved systematic and planned conduct engaged in for significant reward.
The primary sentencing considerations in relation to burglary are personal and general deterrence: Ridley v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 45 [13]. Deterrence is an important principle in sentencing for burglaries, whether they are of residential or commercial premises: Fraser v The Queen [2003] WASCA 99 [26] ‑ [28]. When determining the applicable sentencing standards for an offence, it is necessary to consider comparable cases. However, such cases can only provide general guidance due to the very diverse circumstances in which burglaries are committed by offenders, whose personal circumstances may also widely differ.
Aggravated reckless driving is also an offence which can occur in a wide range of circumstances. However, offences like those committed by the appellant which involve deliberately dangerous driving to evade police represent 'a calculated disregard for the lives, safety and property of others, the authority of the police and the public concern as to the prevalence and demonstrated dangers of so driving': Hume v The Queen [2000] WASCA 306; (2000) 33 MVR 203 [14].
…
Having regard to the appellant's personal circumstances, there was very little by way of mitigation other than his pleas of guilty. He was given an appropriate discount to reflect those pleas. He was a mature man at the time of the offending who made a deliberate decision to engage in the offences and persisted in them over a six‑week period. The most weighty factors in this case were personal and general deterrence. Factors personal to the appellant, such as the impact on his family, could not be given great weight.
In my view, the sentencing magistrate properly took into account the need to arrive at a just and appropriate aggregate sentence. She was clearly conscious of the objective seriousness of the offending conduct. The total effective sentence is an appropriate reflection of the total criminality and is not one that can be said to be outside the sound range of discretionary judgment.
[4] Boase v Roberts [35] ‑ [40].
The appellant's personal circumstances
The appellant was aged 31 at the time he was sentenced. He had a partner and three children. The appellant's crime spree was precipitated by a car accident which left him with physical injuries. The injuries restricted his ability to work, causing him to lose his job and to get into financial difficulty. At that stage, the appellant was also using illicit drugs.
As the sentencing judge observed, the appellant stupidly believed that the crime spree was the way to solve his problems and support his family. By the time he was sentenced by the primary judge, the appellant understood that this was the wrong approach.
The appellant was not of good character. Before the crime spree, he had a record of offending that included stealing and traffic offences.
The sentencing judge received a letter from the appellant in which he expressed remorse for his offending and a desire to live a more prosocial life. The sentencing judge also received letters from the appellant's mother and partner, both of whom expressed support for him and said that he can be a good person.
Sentencing remarks
The sentencing judge noted that there was some premeditation and planning in the burglary and stealing offences.[5] Her Honour observed that the criminal damage by fire offence was aggravated by a number of matters:
•the possibility for catastrophic damage from fire set in bushland;
•the fact that the offence was committed in an attempt to destroy evidence that may link the appellant to the car;
•the offence was committed at night, when the chance of detection was lower; and
•there was other property in the car that was also destroyed.[6]
[5] Sentencing remarks [13].
[6] Sentencing remarks [14] ‑ [15].
The only matters of any substantial mitigation were the appellant's plea of guilty and the remorse that he had shown, independently of his pleas of guilty.[7]
[7] Sentencing remarks [16].
Her Honour discounted the head sentences for each offence by 20% on account of the pleas of guilty, which were entered after the first reasonable opportunity, but before committal.[8]
[8] Sentencing remarks [18].
Her Honour imposed sentence as follows:[9]
For the offence of burglary, it would be a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. For the stealing of the motor vehicle, the same penalty, that is, one of 12 months. Were it not for the issue of cumulacy, I would impose a sentence of 2 years imprisonment for the criminal damage by fire. But I must now go on to consider the issue of whether those sentences ought to be served concurrently or cumulatively.
I must make a judgment as to whether they should be served concurrently or cumulative with each other and concurrently or cumulatively with the sentences imposed by the magistrate. I must make a judgment which recognises that the object is to impose a total effective sentence which so far as possible accurately reflects the totality of criminality involved in all of your offences. This means that offences committed during the one transaction may attract concurrent sentences. On the other hand, distinct and separate offences may legitimately attract distinct and cumulative sentences. Finally, the total sentence I impose must not be crushing.
My judgment is that the sentences on counts 1 and 2 should be served concurrently with one another and should commence from today. In respect of count 3, there ought to be a portion of that order to be served cumulatively both with counts 1 and 2 and with the other sentences you are currently serving. In order to do that as simply as possible, I have decided to reduce what would have been a sentence of 2 years for criminal damage by fire to one of 18 months' imprisonment. I will order that it is to be served cumulatively on the sentences imposed today by me and also by the magistrate.
Mark Christopher Boase, for the offence of burglary I sentence you to 12 months' imprisonment.
For stealing a motor vehicle, I sentence you to 12 months' imprisonment.
For criminal damage by fire, I sentence you to 18 months' imprisonment.
The sentences on counts 1 and 2 are to commence today and to be served concurrently with each other and any other sentence you are serving or yet to serve. The sentence on count 3 is to be served cumulatively on the sentences on counts 1 and 2, and cumulatively on any other sentence you are serving or yet to serve.
[9] Sentencing remarks [19] ‑ [25].
Ground of appeal
The appellant's sole ground of appeal is that the total sentence imposed was disproportionate to the total criminality, having regard to the circumstances of the offending, the personal circumstances of the appellant and sentencing standards. The appellant refers to a number of cases in which multiple offences of stealing, burglary or like offences resulted in a total effective sentence of something in the same order as the 4 years imposed on the appellant.[10] The appellant's submissions attempt to compare the seriousness of the burglary or stealing offences in those cases with the burglary or stealing offences committed by the appellant.
[10] Appellant's submission [12] ‑ [15], referring to Mogridge v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 205; Newport v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 224; Tela v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 103; and McColl v Roberts [2014] WASC 300.
These cases do not assist the appellant. Apart from anything else, none of them includes an offence of criminal damage by fire. The seriousness of an offence of criminal damage by fire is reflected in its maximum penalty of life imprisonment. We will say more about the seriousness of offences of this nature, reflected in patterns of sentences customarily imposed, later in these reasons.
The following general principles concerning an appeal on the ground of totality are well established:
(1)Sentencing is a discretionary exercise. An appellate court can intervene only if the appellant demonstrates either an express or implied material error. Express error involves acting on a wrong principle, for example by mistaking the law or facts or taking into account an irrelevant matter. Implied error arises where the end result is so unreasonable or unjust that the court must conclude that a substantial wrong has occurred. Thus, an appellate court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the sentencing court merely because the appellate court would have exercised the sentencing discretion differently.
(2)The first limb of the totality principle requires that the total effective sentence imposed on an offender who has committed multiple offences bears a proper relationship to the overall criminality involved in all of the offences (including those, if any, in respect of which the offender is serving or is yet to serve a term of imprisonment), viewed in their entirety, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances including those referable to the offender personally, all relevant sentencing factors and the total effective sentences imposed in comparable cases.
(3)The range of sentences customarily imposed for a crime does not establish the range of a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. Sentences customarily imposed in comparable cases provide a yardstick or reference point for ensuring broad consistency in sentencing, bearing in mind the scope for significant variations in relevant sentencing factors, and that there is no single correct sentence. What is important is the unifying principles which sentences imposed in comparable cases reveal and reflect.
(4)When this court dismisses an appeal against sentence and when it resentences on a successful appeal, its decision does not fix the upper or lower limit of the range.
The serious features of the offences for which the appellant had been sentenced in the Magistrates Court were outlined by Hall J, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against that sentence. See [12] above.
As the sentencing judge rightly observed, the fact that the appellant committed the offence of criminal damage by fire in order to avoid detection for other offences was an aggravating factor of the appellant's offence of criminal damage by fire. Among the considerations relevant to the seriousness of an offence of criminal damage by fire are the motive with which the offence was committed, the extent of damage caused by the offence, the extent to which the offence endangered human life, and the nature of the property damaged.[11]
[11] Rimington v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 102 [67]; Newton v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 247 [13].
Prior to 2009 amendments increasing the maximum penalty for arson[12] from 14 years' imprisonment to life imprisonment, Miller JA observed in The State of Western Australia v Bennett[13] that, while there was no tariff for the offence of arson, in very serious cases the offence commonly attracted sentences within a range (converted into post‑transitional terms) of 2 years 8 months to 4 years 8 months and, in less serious cases, from 2 years to 3 years 4 months. That range does not establish a sentencing matrix. It provides general guidance, but does not fix an upper or lower limit.[14] Since that range was established, Parliament has increased the maximum penalty for the offence of arson. An increase in the maximum penalty for an offence is an indication that sentences for that offence should be increased.[15] Patterns of sentences for arson since the increase in the maximum penalty are yet to emerge.[16]
[12] Arson Legislation Amendment Act 2009 (WA), s 11(1)(b).
[13] The State of Western Australia v Bennett [2009] WASCA 93; (2009) 194 A Crim R 137 [48]; McLaughlin v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 204; (2012) 224 A Crim R 134 [49] ‑ [50].
[14] McLaughlin [56].
[15] Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 [31]; McLaughlin [61]; Morcom v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 31 [49].
[16] McLaughlin [65]; Morcom [50].
The appellant emphasises that his term of imprisonment has meant that he has lost time with his children and family.[17] While that no doubt causes the appellant immense anguish and regret, it is a consequence of a course of conduct involving serious criminal offending that requires a substantial term of imprisonment to reflect its overall criminality.
[17] Appeal ts 3.
The appellant submits that his sentences for the three offences dealt with by Jenkins J should have all been made concurrent with the 4 years' imprisonment which he was already serving. In this regard, the appellant emphasises that the two groups of offences were related and occurred within the same period of six weeks or so.[18] While that is so, in our view it would have been inappropriate to have made the sentences for the three offences wholly concurrent with the existing terms of imprisonment. The appellant's conduct for which her Honour imposed the term of 18 months' imprisonment called for some accumulation on top of the 4 year term already imposed on the appellant. That is particularly true of the offence of criminal damage by fire, which was a serious offence in its own right, and which involved a distinctly different form of criminality. The question for this court is not whether it would have imposed the same degree of accumulation as her Honour. Rather, the question is whether, on a proper application of sentencing principles, the sentence imposed was open.
[18] Appeal ts 3.
In our opinion, it cannot be said that the total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for the offences of arson, burglary and stealing, cumulative on the 4 years' imprisonment already being served, was unreasonable or plainly unjust. To the contrary, in our view, the sentence of 18 months' immediate imprisonment (cumulative on the 4 years) was well within the range of sentences that properly reflect the overall criminality of the appellant's offending, viewed in its entirety, having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances, including those referable to the appellant personally, and having regard to all relevant sentencing factors. The sentencing outcome is consistent with the proper application of the relevant principles in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.
For these reasons, we would refuse leave to appeal.
Conclusion
We would make the following orders:
(1)Leave to appeal on ground 1 is refused.
(2)The appeal is dismissed.
Appendix 1
| Charge | Date | Offence and details | (Max Penalty) Summary conviction penalty | Penalty imposed | |
| 1. | FR 2889/17 | 14.01.17 | Burglary and commit offence - (Stiker Australia business premises; stole tools and equipment valued at $6,600) | (14 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 12 months' (Head sentence) |
| 2. | FR 2890/17 | 14.01.17 | Associated Stealing | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | No Penalty |
| 3. | FR 2892/17 | 10.02.17 | Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - ($8,991 worth of tools/equipment) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 3 months' concurrent |
| 4. | FR 2894/17 | 10.02.17 | Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - ($43,573.74 worth of work tools/equipment) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 3 months' concurrent |
| 5. | FR 2895/17 | 13.02.17 | Gains benefit by fraud - (gained $350 cash) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 1 month |
| 6. | FR 2896/17 | 12.02.17 | Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Boom Logistics business premises; stole tools and equipment valued at $4,500) | (20 years) 3 years/$36K fine | 12 months' concurrent |
| 7. | FR 2897/17 | 12.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [2] | No Penalty |
| 8. | FR 2898/17 | 12.02.17 | Burglary and commit offence - (All Type Engineering business premises; stole tools and equipment valued at $3,750) | Above at [1] | 12 months' concurrent |
| 9. | FR 2899/17 | 12.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [2] | No Penalty |
| 10. | FR 2900/17 | 15.02.17 | Criminal damage - (coin machine at Rhino Carwash) | (10 years) 3 years/$36K fine | Fine $1,200 (Global) |
| 11. | FR 2901/17 | 15.02.17 | Stealing (Stole $14 cash from Rhino Carwash) | (7 years) $6K fine | No Penalty |
| 12. | FR 2902/17 | 17.02.17 | Burglary and commit offence - (Fifty Road Deli business premises; stole cigarettes valued at $300) | Above at [1] | 12 months' concurrent |
| 13. | FR 2903/17 | 17.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [11] | No Penalty |
| 14. | FR 2904/17 | 18.02.17 | Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Ryan's Quality Meats business premises; stole laptops, cash valued at $1,300) | (20 years) 3 years/$36K fine | 12 months' Concurrent |
| 15. | FR 2905/17 | 18.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [2] | No Penalty |
| 16. | FR 2906/17 | 20.02.17 | Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Coogee Fish and Chips business premises; stole $300 cash) | (20 years) 3 years/$36K fine | 12 months' concurrent |
| 17. | FR 2907/17 | 20.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [11] | No Penalty |
| 18. | FR 2908/17 | 20.02.17 | Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Happy Nails business premises - stole $250 cash) | (20 years) 3 years/$36K fine | 11 months' concurrent |
| 19. | FR 2909/17 | 20.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [11] | No Penalty |
| 20. | FR 2910/17 | 20.02.17 | Aggravated Burglary and commit offence - (Roti Burrito business premises - stole $250 cash) | (20 years) 3 years/$36K fine | 11 months' concurrent |
| 21. | FR 2911/17 | 20.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [11] | No Penalty |
| 22. | FR 2912/17 | 20.02.17 | Burglary and commit offence - (Domino's Baldivis business premises - stole $30 cash) | Above at [1] | 11 months' Concurrent |
| 23. | FR 2913/17 | 20.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [2] | No Penalty |
| 24. | FR 2914/17 | 20.02.17 | Burglary and commit offence - (Eiffel Curtains business premises - stole items worth $430) | Above at [1] | 12 months' Concurrent |
| 25. | FR 2915/17 | 20.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [11] | No Penalty |
| 26. | FR 2916/17 | 20.02.17 | Burglary and commit offence (North West Finance business premises - stole items worth $7,000) | Above at [1] | 15 months' Cumulative |
| 27. | FR 2917/17 | 20.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [2] | No Penalty |
| 28. | FR 2918/17 | Steal motor vehicle and drive recklessly to escape police pursuit | Mandatory min: 6 months' imp Max: 2 years' imp | 6 months' concurrent | |
| 29. | FR 2920/17 | 22.02.17 | Burglary with intent - (George Street Merchants business premises) | (14 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 11 months' concurrent |
| 30. | FR 2921/17 | 22.02.17 | Burglary and commit offence - (Rubra Coffee; stole cash and items worth $1,011) | Above at [1] | 11 months' concurrent |
| 31. | FR 2922/17 | 22.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [2] | No Penalty |
| 32. | FR 2923/17 | 22.02.17 | Burglary and commit offence - (TT Auto Services; stole tools and items worth $6,647) | Above at [1] | 12 months' concurrent |
| 33. | FR 2924/17 | 22.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [2] | No Penalty |
| 34. | FR 2925/17 | 23.02.17 | Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - (Rockworth Compressor, Ryobi Drill, Echo blower) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 3 months' concurrent |
| 35. | FR 2926/17 | 23.02.17 | Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - (power tools and computer equipment) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 3 months' concurrent |
| 36. | FR 2927/17 | 23.02.17 | Possession stolen/unlawfully obtained property - (6 licence plates) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 3 months' concurrent |
| 37. | FR 2928/17 | 20.02.17 | Failure to stop | $200 fine | (Global fine) |
| 38. | FR 2032/17 | 16.01.17 | Steal motor vehicle (Honda Motorcycle) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 5 months' concurrent |
| 39. | FR 2035/17 | 10.02.17 | Steal motor vehicle (Kawasaki Motorcycle) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 5 months' concurrent |
| 40. | FR 2036/17 | 10.02.17 | Stealing (registration plates) | Above at [11] | (Global fine) |
| 41. | FR 2037/17 | 13.02.17 | Stealing (registration plates) | Above at [11] | (Global fine) |
| 42. | FR 2038/17 | 14.02.17 | Stealing ($79.53 diesel fuel) | Above at [11] | (Global fine) |
| 43. | FR 2039/17 | 18.02.17 | Steal motor vehicle (Holden Colorado Utility) | (7 years) 2 years/$24K fine | 12 months' cumulative |
| 44. | FR 2040/17 | 22.02.17 | Burglary and commit offence (Dolce and Salato business premises; stole $400 cash) | Above at [1] | 11 months' concurrent |
| 45. | FR 2041/17 | 22.02.17 | Associated Stealing | Above at [11] | No Penalty |
| 46. | FR 2042/17 s 60(1A)(b) RTA | 23.02.17 | Steal motor vehicle and drive recklessly to escape police pursuit | Mandatory min: 6 months' imp Max: 2 years' imp | 9 months' cumulative |
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
DM
ASSOCIATE TO THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BEECH19 JUNE 2018
0
15
1