COLLINS -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 142
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 142 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 29/05/2002 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:220/2000 | 15 MAY 2002 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J MURRAY J MILLER J | 15/05/02 | |
| 10 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JASON ROBERT COLLINS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Eleven serious offences committed on the one occasion Offences included aggravated burglary, aggravated sexual assaults, robbery, assault occasioning bodily harm and assault with intent to prevent arrest Sentences aggregating 11 years imprisonment imposed Sentences not manifestly excessive Sufficient credit provided for early pleas of guilty |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Leslie v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940080; 21 February 1994 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995 Trescuri v The Queen [1999] WASCA 172 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : COLLINS -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 142 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- MURRAY J
MILLER J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Eleven serious offences committed on the one occasion - Offences included aggravated burglary, aggravated sexual assaults, robbery, assault occasioning bodily harm and assault with intent to prevent arrest - Sentences aggregating 11 years imprisonment imposed - Sentences not manifestly excessive - Sufficient credit provided for early pleas of guilty
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for leave to appeal refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms K J Farley
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):
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Case(s) also cited:
Leslie v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940080; 21 February 1994
Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1
Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254
Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995
Trescuri v The Queen [1999] WASCA 172
(Page 3)
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 15 September 2000, the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court before Hammond CJDC, the Chief…
Continue reading Collins v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Collins v The Queen [2002] WASCA 142
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Collins v The Queen involved the appellant who had committed a series of serious offences during a single incident. These offences included aggravated burglary, aggravated sexual assaults, robbery, and assault occasioning bodily harm, among others. The appellant was sentenced to an aggregate of 11 years imprisonment. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. Additionally, the court had to consider whether sufficient credit was given for the appellant's early pleas of guilty.
The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It took into account the seriousness of the offences, the circumstances under which they were committed, and the appellant's early pleas of guilty. The court emphasised that the offences were of a serious nature, involving multiple victims and significant harm. Despite this, the court noted that the sentence was within the range that could be reasonably expected for such a series of offences. The court also acknowledged that credit had been given for the appellant's early pleas of guilty, which was reflected in the overall sentence imposed.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to balance the gravity of the offences with the appropriate punishment. It considered the cumulative effect of the offences and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the appellant's criminal conduct and that the early pleas of guilty warranted a reduction in the overall penalty. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.
The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It took into account the seriousness of the offences, the circumstances under which they were committed, and the appellant's early pleas of guilty. The court emphasised that the offences were of a serious nature, involving multiple victims and significant harm. Despite this, the court noted that the sentence was within the range that could be reasonably expected for such a series of offences. The court also acknowledged that credit had been given for the appellant's early pleas of guilty, which was reflected in the overall sentence imposed.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to balance the gravity of the offences with the appropriate punishment. It considered the cumulative effect of the offences and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the appellant's criminal conduct and that the early pleas of guilty warranted a reduction in the overall penalty. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for 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.