Legal Research
Cases
"C" v Hampson

"C" v Hampson

Case [2005] WASC 227 28 October 2005

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

"C" -v- HAMPSON & ORS [2005] WASC 227

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 227
Case No:	SJA:1060/2005	Heard:	10 OCTOBER 2005
Coram:	SIMMONDS J	Delivered:	28/10/05
No of pages:	24	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	"C" CLINT JAMES HAMPSON ROBERT JAMES TALBOT LAWRENCE MELISSA AMY RIMMER CADE ANDREW EVANS PAUL ANTHONY WHITE
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Offender sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment on pleas of guilty to property, fraud and traffic offences Whether Magistrate erred in not taking into account offender's co-operation with police Whether Magistrate erred in refusing to order eligibility for parole Failure to backdate sentence for time spent remanded in custody
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8(5), s 89
Case References:	Austin v Grapes [2004] WASCA 102 Barany v The Queen [2000] WASCA 240 Chivers v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 97 Lievense v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7175; 24 June 1988 Messiha v Royce [2004] WASCA 290 Myles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Pickett v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 291 R v Cartwright [1989] 17 NSWLR 243 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Phan (2001) 126 A Crim R 257 Rafferty v The Queen [2002] WASCA 312 Skerritt v The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 28(S) Smoker v The Queen [2001] WASCA 388 Auburn v Sears, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970508; 2 October 1997 Breuer & Chaney v The Queen (1986) 32 A Crim R 1 Hayes v The Queen [1981] WAR 252 King v The Queen [2001] WASCA 198 Quartermaine v The Queen [2002] WASCA 60 R v Duffy (1996) 85 A Crim R 456 R v Garlett (2000) 111 A Crim R 336 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : "C" -v- HAMPSON & ORS [2005] WASC 227 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 10 OCTOBER 2005 DELIVERED : 28 OCTOBER 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1060 of 2005 BETWEEN : "C"

Appellant

AND

CLINT JAMES HAMPSON

ROBERT JAMES TALBOT LAWRENCE

MELISSA AMY RIMMER

CADE ANDREW EVANS

PAUL ANTHONY WHITE

Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR F CULLEN SM

File No : PE 55283 of 2004, PE 55380 of 2004, PE 55381 of 2004, PE 13525 of 2005, PE 13526 of 2005, PE 13559 of 2005, PE 13561 of 2005, PE 13562 of 2005, PE 13563 of 2005, PE 13564 of 2005, PE 13565 of 2005, PE 13566 of 2005, PE 13567 of 2005, PE 15818 of 2005, PE 15819 of 2005, PE 15820 of 2005, PE 15821 of 2005, PE 15822 of 2005, PE 15823 of 2005, PE 17252 of 2005

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Offender sentenced to…

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 "C" v Hampson

Details

AGLC: "C" v Hampson [2005] WASC 227
Case: [2005] WASC 227
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the case of "C" v Hampson was heard by Simmonds J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant, "C", was appealing against the sentences of imprisonment imposed on him by a Stipendiary Magistrate, following his pleas of guilty to numerous property, fraud, and traffic offences. The appeal was based on three grounds: the Magistrate's failure to take into account the appellant's co-operation with the police, the failure to backdate the sentence for the time spent remanded in custody, and the failure to make a parole eligibility order.

The court found that the Magistrate erred in not considering the appellant's co-operation with the police in reducing his sentence. The court held that the Magistrate's insistence on receiving documentation from a high-ranking police officer before considering any reduction in sentence was inappropriate. The court found that the information provided by the appellant was genuine and valuable, and that the Magistrate should have considered this information in sentencing.

The court also found that the Magistrate erred in not backdating the sentence for the time the appellant had spent remanded in custody. The court held that the Magistrate failed to exercise his discretion properly in this regard.

Finally, the court found that the Magistrate erred in not making a parole eligibility order. The court held that the Magistrate's characterisation of the relevant statutory provision was incorrect, and that he had failed to properly weigh the relevant factors in deciding whether to make such an order.

As a result of these findings, the court quashed the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellant and ordered that the matter be relisted for further evidence and argument about the appropriate reduction (if any) for the assistance the appellant had provided to law enforcement authorities. The court also ordered that any sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant should be backdated to the date of his remand in custody and that a parole eligibility order should be made.

The court indicated its preliminary view that terms of immediate imprisonment were called for in this case, subject to the further hearing and the evidence and argument at it. The court noted that the appellant's extensive criminal history, breaches of supervisory orders, and the nature of the offending warranted such sentences. The court also considered the appellant's pleas of guilty and his personal circumstances in reaching its preliminary view.

Orders