CARR -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2013] WASCA 192
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASCA 192 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:19/2013 | 21 JUNE 2013 | |
| Coram: | NEWNES JA MAZZA JA | 22/08/13 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID ROY CARR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Application for extension of time Application for leave to appeal against sentence Aggravated armed robbery Aggravated robbery Totality principle |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 378, s 392 Criminal Investigation (identifying People) Act 2002 (WA), s 16(8) |
Case References: | JSA v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 25; (2012) 42 WAR 473 R v Nichols (1991) 57 A Crim R 391 Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 Ugle v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 104 Williams v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 102 Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82 Wimbridge v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 196 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : CARR -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2013] WASCA 192 CORAM : NEWNES JA
- MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : McKECHNIE J
File No : INS 153 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Application for extension of time - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Aggravated armed robbery - Aggravated robbery - Totality principle
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 378, s 392
Criminal Investigation (identifying People) Act 2002 (WA), s 16(8)
Result:
Application refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr H Sklarz
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant : Henry Sklarz Barrister & Solicitor
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
JSA v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 25; (2012) 42 WAR 473
R v Nichols (1991) 57 A Crim R 391
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Ugle v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 104
Williams v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 102
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
Wimbridge v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 196
1 REASONS OF THE COURT: Before the court are applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence.
2 The appellant pleaded guilty to robbing a convenience store on three separate occasions during June 2012. He also entered pleas of guilty in relation to several other offences committed over approximately the same period, including stealing from the convenience store on a fourth occasion. The appellant was 20 years old at the…
Continue reading Carr v The State of Western Australia
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- CARR -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2013] WASCA 192
- Case
- [2013] WASCA 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Carr v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, Carr, was convicted of aggravated armed robbery and aggravated robbery. He applied for an extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal against his sentence and sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the basis that it was excessive. The State of Western Australia opposed the application on the basis that it was filed well outside the statutory time limits and was an abuse of process. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Court of Appeal.
The court was required to consider whether the application for an extension of time was permissible and whether the appeal against sentence was in the interests of justice. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was excessive in light of the totality principle, which requires a court to consider the cumulative effect of multiple sentences imposed on a defendant for multiple offences arising from the same criminal episode.
The court found that the application for an extension of time was an abuse of process and was not in the interests of justice. The court noted that the application was filed well outside the statutory time limits and that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court also found that the sentence was not excessive in light of the totality principle. The court noted that the appellant had a significant criminal history and that the offences were serious in nature. The court held that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and was not disproportionate.
The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time was refused.
The court was required to consider whether the application for an extension of time was permissible and whether the appeal against sentence was in the interests of justice. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was excessive in light of the totality principle, which requires a court to consider the cumulative effect of multiple sentences imposed on a defendant for multiple offences arising from the same criminal episode.
The court found that the application for an extension of time was an abuse of process and was not in the interests of justice. The court noted that the application was filed well outside the statutory time limits and that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court also found that the sentence was not excessive in light of the totality principle. The court noted that the appellant had a significant criminal history and that the offences were serious in nature. The court held that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and was not disproportionate.
The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application refused
Appeal 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.