Chia v The Queen - [2018] WASCA 103

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   CHIA -v- THE QUEEN [2018] WASCA 103
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA

HEARD:   8 MARCH 2018
DELIVERED          :   29 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACR 240 of 2017
BETWEEN:   PHILIP CHIA
Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   BOWDEN DCJ
File Number             :   IND 2251 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Leave to appeal against sentence - Appellant convicted on plea of guilty of theft - Mental impairment - Manifest excess - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(1), s 16A(2), s 16A(2)(c), s 16BA, s 17A(1)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 131.1(1), s 144.1(1), s 145(1)
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), s 6

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Cavill v The Queen [2014] WASCA 77
Coombe v The Queen [2009] WASCA 105
De Faria v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 116
Godfrey v The Queen [2013] WASCA 247
Gok v The Queen [2010] WASCA 185
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
McGuiness v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 80
R v Buggy [2006] ACTCA 20
R v Delcaro (1989) 41 A Crim R 33
R v Desborough [2010] QCA 297
R v Thomson [2009] SASC 237
Vucemillo v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 37

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.
The appellant was charged with one count on an indictment filed in the District Court alleging that the appellant dishonestly appropriated property from a Commonwealth entity, contrary to s 131.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The charge read:
Between 15 February 2010 and 29 November 2013 at Perth in the State of Western Australia and elsewhere in Australia [the appellant] dishonestly appropriated property, namely payments of [a]ge [p]ension belonging to another, namely Centrelink (now the Department of Human Services), which is a Commonwealth entity, with the intention of permanently depriving Centrelink of that property.
The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years' imprisonment.
On 27 October 2017, the appellant was arraigned on the charge and was convicted of it upon his plea of guilty.
Upon entering his plea of guilty, the appellant requested the District Court to take into account two further offences pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) being one count of forgery, contrary to s 144.1(1) of the Code and one count of using a forged document, contrary to s 145.1(1) of the Code. The court, having been satisfied that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was proper to take these offences into account,[1] proceeded to sentence the appellant with…

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 Chia v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chia v The Queen [2018] WASCA 103
Case: [2018] WASCA 103
Decision Date: 29 JUNE 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chia v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted on a plea of guilty to theft. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to his mental impairment. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant, considering his mental impairment, constituted a manifest excess. This involved examining the sentencing principles in relation to mental impairment and determining if the sentence was disproportionately severe.

The court considered whether the trial judge had properly taken into account the appellant's mental impairment when imposing the sentence. It examined the nature and extent of the appellant's mental impairment and its impact on his culpability and sentencing. The court reviewed the evidence presented regarding the appellant's mental state and assessed whether the trial judge had erred in failing to sufficiently consider these factors. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was a manifest excess when the appellant's mental condition was properly weighed.

The High Court concluded that the sentence was not a manifest excess. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mental impairment in the sentencing process. The court held that, while the appellant's mental condition was a relevant mitigating factor, it did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders