BOYD -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 239

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 239
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:49/2002	Heard:	19 AUGUST 2002
Coram:	WALLWORK J ANDERSON J FITZGERALD AJ	Delivered:	30/08/02
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DION SHAUN BOYD THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentence Stealing motor vehicle and driving recklessly Breach of intensive supervision order Whether aggregate sentence of 3 years' imprisonment manifestly excessive History of offending Need for punishment and deterrence
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BOYD -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 239 CORAM : WALLWORK J

ANDERSON J

FITZGERALD AJ

HEARD : 19 AUGUST 2002 DELIVERED : 30 AUGUST 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 49 of 2002 BETWEEN : DION SHAUN BOYD

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentence - Stealing motor vehicle and driving recklessly - Breach of intensive supervision order - Whether aggregate sentence of 3 years' imprisonment manifestly excessive - History of offending - Need for punishment and deterrence

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment and the conclusions of Anderson J.

2 There is nothing I wish to add.

3 ANDERSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences handed down in the District Court by Hammond CJDC on 1 March last. The applicant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on his plea of guilty to one count of stealing a motor vehicle with reckless driving. He was also sentenced to an aggregate of 18 months' imprisonment in respect of certain other offences and there was an order that this aggregate term be served cumulatively on the 18 months he received for the theft of the motor vehicle.

4 It is necessary to give some background in order to understand how these various matters came to be dealt with on the same sentencing day. The history begins on 1 May 1999. In the early hours of that morning the applicant, in company with others, all of whom were apparently under the influence of alcohol or drugs, went on foot from place to place in the northern suburbs of Quinns Rock, Mindarie and Merriwa setting fire to bushland and trees. We do not have details of the number of fires that were lit or the extent of the damage that was caused. The applicant and his co-offenders were apprehended and the applicant was charged with one count of damage (an offence under the Police Act 1892) and one count of setting fire to bush…

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 Boyd v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Boyd v The Queen [2002] WASCA 239
Case: [2002] WASCA 239
Decision Date: 30 AUGUST 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Boyd v The Queen involved the defendant, Boyd, appealing against his sentence of three years' imprisonment for stealing a motor vehicle, driving recklessly, and breaching an intensive supervision order. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Boyd's argument centred on whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive, considering his history of offending and the court's need to balance punishment and deterrence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, taking into account the principles of sentencing in Australia. Boyd argued that the aggregate sentence failed to adequately consider the totality of his offending history, the circumstances of each offence, and the objectives of sentencing such as punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court was required to review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the totality principle and the specific circumstances of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged Boyd's history of offending but emphasised that each offence must be considered in the context of the totality of his criminal behaviour. The court held that the sentence reflected an appropriate balance between the need for punishment, deterrence, and the recognition of Boyd's offending history. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.