BYRNS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 246
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 246 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:159/1999 | 2 MAY 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J WALLWORK J | 8/09/00 | |
| 8 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BROCK RICHARD BYRNS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Aggravated burglary in company, two armed robberies in company and stealing a motor vehicle Sentence of 7-1/2 years' imprisonment Co-offenders receiving lesser sentences but in respect of different offences Parity Whether justifiable sense of grievance Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999 Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281 Gutteridge v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940410; 5 August 1994 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Mortimer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970526; 14 October 1997 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Ward [1999] WASCA 157 Thorp v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970584; 5 November 1997 Urquhart v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950484; 13 September 1995 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BYRNS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 246 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Aggravated burglary in company, two armed robberies in company and stealing a motor vehicle - Sentence of 7-1/2 years' imprisonment - Co-offenders receiving lesser sentences but in respect of different offences - Parity - Whether justifiable sense of grievance - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr B S Hanbury
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Applicant : Beau Hanbury
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Case(s) also cited:
Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999
Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281
Gutteridge v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940410; 5 August 1994
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Mortimer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970526; 14 October 1997
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R…
Continue reading Byrns v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Byrns v The Queen [2000] WASCA 246
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 246
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Byrns v The Queen involves the appellant who was convicted of multiple serious criminal offences, including aggravated burglary, armed robbery, and motor vehicle theft. The appellant appealed against his sentence of 7.5 years' imprisonment, arguing that the sentence was disproportionate compared to those received by his co-offenders. The co-offenders were convicted of different offences and received lesser sentences, which the appellant claimed resulted in a justifiable sense of grievance. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the legality of the sentence and whether the appellant's grievances were justified.
The court was required to address the principle of parity in sentencing, particularly in cases involving co-offenders. The legal issue at hand was whether the appellant's sentence was unjust when compared to those of his co-offenders. The court considered whether the disparity in sentences could be justified by the differing nature of the offences committed by each party, and whether the appellant's sense of grievance was reasonable given the circumstances. The court had to balance the principle of proportionality in sentencing with the need to consider the specific facts of each case.
In its reasoning, the High Court held that the appellant's grievances were not justifiable. The court emphasised that the principle of parity in sentencing is not absolute and that courts have the discretion to impose sentences based on the specific circumstances of each case. The court noted that the co-offenders were convicted of different offences, and their sentences reflected the nature and severity of those offences. The court found that the appellant's sentence was proportionate to the gravity of his crimes, and there was no basis to conclude that it was unjust. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.
The final orders of the court were to refuse leave to appeal against the sentence. The High Court determined that the appellant's grievances regarding the disparity in sentences were unfounded and did not warrant an appeal. The original sentence of 7.5 years' imprisonment was therefore confirmed, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
The court was required to address the principle of parity in sentencing, particularly in cases involving co-offenders. The legal issue at hand was whether the appellant's sentence was unjust when compared to those of his co-offenders. The court considered whether the disparity in sentences could be justified by the differing nature of the offences committed by each party, and whether the appellant's sense of grievance was reasonable given the circumstances. The court had to balance the principle of proportionality in sentencing with the need to consider the specific facts of each case.
In its reasoning, the High Court held that the appellant's grievances were not justifiable. The court emphasised that the principle of parity in sentencing is not absolute and that courts have the discretion to impose sentences based on the specific circumstances of each case. The court noted that the co-offenders were convicted of different offences, and their sentences reflected the nature and severity of those offences. The court found that the appellant's sentence was proportionate to the gravity of his crimes, and there was no basis to conclude that it was unjust. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.
The final orders of the court were to refuse leave to appeal against the sentence. The High Court determined that the appellant's grievances regarding the disparity in sentences were unfounded and did not warrant an appeal. The original sentence of 7.5 years' imprisonment was therefore confirmed, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
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.