CHINNERY -v- HANSEN [2001] WASCA 349
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 349 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1110/2001 | 26 OCTOBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 8/11/01 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SIMONE LYN CHINNERY PAUL CARLTON HANSEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Justices Act Sentencing Driving while disqualified Whether suspended sentence of imprisonment appropriate |
Legislation: | Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994, s 19, s 43 Justices Act 1902, s 186(1)(b), s 196, s 199 Road Traffic Act 1974, s 5(1)(1a), s 49(1)(a), s 49(2) Sentencing Act 1995, s 6, s 16, s 39 |
Case References: | Bacich v Illich [2000] WASCA 133 Cross v Cook [2001] WASCA 242 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315 Dragic v Burrows [2000] WASCA 385 Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327 Griekspoor v Scott [2000] WASCA 419 Marshall v Spent [2000] WASCA 114 Police (SA) v Cadd (1997) 69 SASR 150 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66 Shooter v R (1997) 97 A Crim R 581 Stewart v Waghorn [1999] WASCA 150 Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990001; 13 January 1999 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jennings v Carson & Anor, unreported SCt of WA; Library No 980608; 21 October 1998 Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999 R v Tait & Anor (1979) 46 FLR 386 Reynolds v Wilkinson (1948) 51 WALR 17 White v Lambrecht, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8691; 29 January 1991 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Appellant
AND
PAUL CARLTON HANSEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Justices Act - Sentencing - Driving while disqualified - Whether suspended sentence of imprisonment appropriate
Legislation:
Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994, s 19, s 43
Justices Act 1902, s 186(1)(b), s 196, s 199
Road Traffic Act 1974, s 5(1)(1a), s 49(1)(a), s 49(2)
Sentencing Act 1995, s 6, s 16, s 39
Result:
Appeal allowed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr P R Eaton
Respondent : Mr F Sunderland
Solicitors:
Appellant : Bowen Buchbinder Vilensky
Respondent : State Crown Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bacich v Illich [2000] WASCA 133
Cross v Cook [2001] WASCA 242
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315
Dragic v Burrows [2000] WASCA 385
Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327
Griekspoor v Scott [2000] WASCA 419
Marshall v Spent [2000] WASCA 114
Police (SA) v Cadd (1997) 69 SASR 150
R…
Continue reading Chinnery v Hansen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Chinnery v Hansen [2001] WASCA 349
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 349
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Chinnery v Hansen, the appellant, Chinnery, appealed against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Chinnery was convicted of driving while disqualified and sought to challenge the sentencing decision. The nature of the dispute centred on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the magistrate, which included a suspended sentence of imprisonment. Chinnery argued that the sentence was excessive and that alternative sentencing options, such as fines or community service, were more suitable.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate exercised their discretion appropriately in sentencing Chinnery to a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions under the Justices Act, which guide the imposition of sentences, and assess whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence and in line with sentencing principles. Additionally, the court examined the circumstances surrounding the offence, including Chinnery's criminal history, culpability, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.
The court held that the magistrate had not adequately considered the principles of sentencing and the relevant statutory provisions when imposing the suspended sentence. The court found that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence and did not align with the objectives of sentencing, which include general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. The court further determined that the magistrate had not sufficiently weighed the alternative sentencing options available. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration of the appropriate sentence.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate exercised their discretion appropriately in sentencing Chinnery to a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions under the Justices Act, which guide the imposition of sentences, and assess whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence and in line with sentencing principles. Additionally, the court examined the circumstances surrounding the offence, including Chinnery's criminal history, culpability, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.
The court held that the magistrate had not adequately considered the principles of sentencing and the relevant statutory provisions when imposing the suspended sentence. The court found that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence and did not align with the objectives of sentencing, which include general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. The court further determined that the magistrate had not sufficiently weighed the alternative sentencing options available. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration of the appropriate sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.