COLLEDGE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 132
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 132 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:246/2000 | 2 APRIL 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 26/04/01 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | FRANK WILLIAM COLLEDGE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Grievous bodily harm Victim struck by motor vehicle driven by offender Four years imprisonment imposed Whether sentence manifestly excessive Whether suspended imprisonment should have been imposed Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39, s 76 |
Case References: | Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315 Kitts v The Queen [2000] WASCA 113 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Hodges [1999] WASCA 278 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v O'Malley, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980715; 9 December 1998 Jones v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920406; 31 July 1992 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Nevermann (1989) 42 A Crim R 347 Vilai v The Queen [1999] WASCA 275 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : COLLEDGE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 132 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Grievous bodily harm - Victim struck by motor vehicle driven by offender - Four years imprisonment imposed - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Whether suspended imprisonment should have been imposed - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39, s 76
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In Person
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Applicant : Unrepresented Criminal Appellants Scheme
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315
Kitts v The Queen [2000] WASCA 113
Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338
R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
R v Hodges [1999] WASCA 278
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
R v O'Malley, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980715; 9 December 1998
Case(s) also cited:
Jones v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920406; 31 July 1992
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Nevermann (1989) 42 A Crim R 347
Vilai v The Queen [1999] WASCA 275
(Page 3)
1 MALCOLM CJ: I would refuse this application for leave to appeal for the reasons to be published by Murray J with which I am in entire agreement.
2 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Murray J and to the order which is proposed…
Continue reading Colledge v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Colledge v The Queen [2001] WASCA 132
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 132
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Colledge v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm by driving a motor vehicle that struck the victim. The appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment, and he sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of suspended imprisonment should have been imposed instead. The High Court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge should have imposed a sentence of suspended imprisonment.
The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances. The court also considered whether the trial judge should have imposed a sentence of suspended imprisonment, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence and the principles of sentencing. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge should have imposed a sentence of suspended imprisonment, given the offender's lack of a criminal record and the fact that the offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing a term of imprisonment.
The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not erred in imposing a term of imprisonment. The court emphasised that the principles of sentencing required the trial judge to consider the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the interests of society in punishing and deterring crime. The court found that the trial judge had given appropriate weight to these factors and had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of sentencing. The court also held that the trial judge had not erred in declining to impose a sentence of suspended imprisonment, given the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the offender and others from engaging in similar conduct.
The court ultimately refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of sentencing. The court also held that the trial judge had not erred in declining to impose a sentence of suspended imprisonment, given the nature and circumstances of the offence.
The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances. The court also considered whether the trial judge should have imposed a sentence of suspended imprisonment, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence and the principles of sentencing. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge should have imposed a sentence of suspended imprisonment, given the offender's lack of a criminal record and the fact that the offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing a term of imprisonment.
The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not erred in imposing a term of imprisonment. The court emphasised that the principles of sentencing required the trial judge to consider the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the interests of society in punishing and deterring crime. The court found that the trial judge had given appropriate weight to these factors and had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of sentencing. The court also held that the trial judge had not erred in declining to impose a sentence of suspended imprisonment, given the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the offender and others from engaging in similar conduct.
The court ultimately refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of sentencing. The court also held that the trial judge had not erred in declining to impose a sentence of suspended imprisonment, given the nature and circumstances of the offence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
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.