CASOTTI -v- PICKERING [2013] WASC 174
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 174 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1044/2013 | 22 APRIL 2013 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 22/04/13 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted on ground 3 Appeal allowed Sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARTA ALICIA CASOTTI CLAIR LOUISE PICKERING |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Driving under the influence of alcohol Sentence of 6 months and 1 day's imprisonment Whether manifestly excessive Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 63 |
Case References: | Anderson v Little [2009] WASC 143 Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Hamlett v Whitney [2013] WASC 100 Holding v Parkin [2012] WASC 113 Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65 Morcom v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 31 Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316 Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319 Trompler v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 265 Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17 Zinga v Johnson [2012] WASC 216 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
CLAIR LOUISE PICKERING
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE G A BENN
File No : MI 11575 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Driving under the influence of alcohol - Sentence of 6 months and 1 day's imprisonment - Whether manifestly excessive - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 63
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted on ground 3
Appeal allowed
Sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms K A Gorski
Respondent : Mr D Anderson
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Anderson v Little [2009] WASC 143
Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Hamlett v Whitney [2013] WASC 100
Holding v Parkin [2012] WASC 113
Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65
Morcom v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 31
Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316
Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319
Trompler v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 265
Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17
Zinga v Johnson [2012] WASC 216
(Page 3)
- HALL J:
(This judgment was delivered orally and has been edited from the transcript)
Introduction
1 On 5 March 2013 the appellant, Marta Casotti, was sentenced to imprisonment…
Continue reading Casotti v Pickering
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- CASOTTI -v- PICKERING [2013] WASC 174
- Case
- [2013] WASC 174
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Casotti, appealed against his sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol, which resulted in a term of imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day. The primary dispute was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in relation to the offence and the circumstances. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria heard the appeal. The legal issues before the court were to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the specific facts of the case. The court had to assess the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence in relation to the offence committed and the individual circumstances of the appellant.
The court examined the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing. It considered that the sentence was disproportionate given the appellant's lack of a prior criminal record, his genuine remorse, and the relatively low level of alcohol consumption. The court also noted the appellant's immediate acceptance of responsibility and the minimal harm caused by his actions. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and did not reflect the individual circumstances of the case. The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the sentence should be proportionate to the offence and the offender. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The sentence of 6 months and 1 day's imprisonment was set aside, and the appellant was re-sentenced. The court acknowledged the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system and the need for sentences to be fair and proportionate. The court's decision to allow the appeal and re-sentence the appellant demonstrated the court's commitment to ensuring that sentences reflect the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
The court examined the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing. It considered that the sentence was disproportionate given the appellant's lack of a prior criminal record, his genuine remorse, and the relatively low level of alcohol consumption. The court also noted the appellant's immediate acceptance of responsibility and the minimal harm caused by his actions. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and did not reflect the individual circumstances of the case. The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the sentence should be proportionate to the offence and the offender. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The sentence of 6 months and 1 day's imprisonment was set aside, and the appellant was re-sentenced. The court acknowledged the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system and the need for sentences to be fair and proportionate. The court's decision to allow the appeal and re-sentence the appellant demonstrated the court's commitment to ensuring that sentences reflect the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted on ground 3
Appeal allowed
Sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced
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.