BRYANT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 226

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 226
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:36/2000	Heard:	1 AUGUST 2000
Coram:	IPP J WALLWORK J PARKER J	Delivered:	24/08/00
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed, 11 year total sentence reduced to 9-1/2 year sentence
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER JOHN BRYANT THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Armed robbery 21 year old offender Drug user Two offences Sentenced to 5-1/2 years imprisonment on each To be served cumulatively
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Armstrong v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980231; 21 April 1998 Eldridge v The Queen [2000] WASCA 41 Ginn v The Queen [2000] WASCA 95 Miles v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970258; 21 May 1997 Riley v The Queen [2000] WASCA 111 Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281 Jarvis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 201 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pratt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 110 Puls v The Queen [2000] WASCA 11 Robertson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990130; 19 March 1999 Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BRYANT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 226 CORAM : IPP J

WALLWORK J

PARKER J

HEARD : 1 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 36 of 2000 BETWEEN : PETER JOHN BRYANT

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Armed robbery - 21 year old offender - Drug user - Two offences - Sentenced to 5-1/2 years imprisonment on each - To be served cumulatively

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed, 11 year total sentence reduced to 9-1/2 year sentence

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr R D Young

Respondent : Mr J R N Rowe

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Armstrong v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980231; 21 April 1998
Eldridge v The Queen [2000] WASCA 41
Ginn v The Queen [2000] WASCA 95
Miles v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970258; 21 May 1997
Riley v The Queen [2000] WASCA 111

Case(s) also cited:

Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281
Jarvis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 201
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pratt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 110
Puls v The Queen [2000] WASCA 11
Robertson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990130; 19 March 1999
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998

(Page 3)

1 IPP J: I agree with the reasons of Wallwork J and have nothing further to add.

2 WALLWORK J: On 11 February 2000 the applicant…

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 Bryant v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bryant v The Queen [2000] WASCA 226
Case: [2000] WASCA 226
Decision Date: 24 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and was sentenced to five and a half years' imprisonment for each offence, to be served cumulatively. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was excessive in the circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to a total of nine and a half years' imprisonment.

The key legal issue in this case was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the court had taken into account all relevant mitigating factors. The appellant argued that the original sentence was too harsh, given his age, background, and the fact that he was a drug user at the time of the offences. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The Court of Appeal found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had not adequately taken into account the appellant's age, background, and drug use at the time of the offences. The Court held that a total sentence of nine and a half years' imprisonment was more appropriate, taking into account all relevant mitigating factors. The Court also noted that the appellant had shown remorse and had taken steps to address his drug addiction since the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed, 11 year total sentence reduced to 9-1/2 year sentence

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.