CORPUS -v- ROSEVEARE [2015] WASC 165
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 165 | |
| 12/05/2015 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1026/2015 | 5 MAY 2015 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 5/05/15 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | 1. Extension of time granted 2. Leave to appeal granted 3. Appeal allowed and appellant resentenced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL DWAYNE CORPUS TYRONE DOUGLAS ROSEVEARE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Mental illness Whether unjust to activate suspended sentences Damage, obstruction of public officer and bail offences Whether total effective sentence of 13 1/2 months disproportionate Totality principle |
Legislation: | Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 80 |
Case References: | Dragon v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 252 F v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 100; (2008) 184 A Crim R 125 Gok v The Queen [2010] WASCA 185 Hall v The Queen [1999] WASCA 225; (1999) 21 WAR 364 Krijestoric v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 35 Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Marston (1993) 60 SASR 320 R v Tsiaras (1996) 1 VR 398 Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 Thompson v The Queen [2005] WASCA 223; (2005) 157 A Crim R 385 Wheeler v The Queen [No 2] [2010] WASCA 105 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
TYRONE DOUGLAS ROSEVEARE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE G A BENN
File No : MI 6927 of 2013, MI 6929 of 2013, MI 3700 of 2014, MI 9564 of 2014, MI 0565 of 2014, PE 84575 of 2014, PE 97738 of 2014, PE 97739 of 2014
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Mental illness - Whether unjust to activate suspended sentences - Damage, obstruction of public officer and bail offences - Whether total effective sentence of 13 1/2 months disproportionate - Totality principle
Legislation:
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 80
Result:
1. Extension of time granted
2. Leave to appeal granted
3. Appeal allowed and appellant resentenced
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms N R Sinton
Respondent : Mr L M Fox & Ms S E Wisbey
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Dragon v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 252
F v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 100; (2008) 184 A Crim R 125
Gok v The Queen [2010] WASCA 185
Hall v The Queen [1999] WASCA 225; (1999) 21 WAR 364
Krijestoric v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 35
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
Continue reading Corpus v Roseveare
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Corpus v Roseveare [2015] WASC 165
- Case
- [2015] WASC 165
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Corpus v Roseveare involved the appellant, Corpus, appealing against the decision of the primary judge to activate suspended sentences. Corpus had been found guilty of several offences, including causing damage to property, obstructing a public officer, and breaches of bail conditions. The primary judge had sentenced Corpus to a total effective sentence of 13 1/2 months. The appellant argued that the sentence was unjust, particularly given his mental illness. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was disproportionate and unjust, taking into account the totality principle. The court also considered whether the activation of the suspended sentences was appropriate given the appellant’s mental health. The court found that the appellant’s mental health was a significant factor that warranted consideration. The totality principle, which requires that the totality of a person's punishment for all their crimes should not be disproportionate, was also a crucial consideration. The court concluded that the sentence was disproportionate and unjust, particularly in light of the appellant's mental health. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced. In addition to the resentencing, the court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Extension of time granted
2. Leave to appeal granted
3. Appeal allowed and appellant resentenced
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.