Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :MAGISTRATE M D WHEELER
File No :PE 41506 of 2010, PE 42401-42429 of 2010, FR 11764-11765 of 2010, PE 5009-5010 of 2011
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeals against sentence - Sentences for aggravated common assault, breaches of violence restraining orders and breaches of protective bail conditions - Taking into account times spent in custody with respect to individual sentences - Whether individual sentences were manifestly excessive - Whether total sentence was contrary to first limb of totality principle
[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 Corrigan v Kirkman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Corrigan v Kirkman [2011] WASC 254
Case
[2011] WASC 254
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The respondents, Corrigan and Kirkman, appealed against their sentences imposed by the County Court of Victoria. Corrigan and Kirkman were convicted of aggravated common assault, breaches of violence restraining orders and breaches of protective bail conditions. Corrigan was sentenced to imprisonment and Kirkman was sentenced to imprisonment followed by a period of supervised release. The respondents argued that their sentences were manifestly excessive and that the total sentence imposed was contrary to the first limb of the totality principle. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The court considered whether the sentences for each offence were manifestly excessive and whether the total sentence was contrary to the first limb of the totality principle. The court noted that the trial judge had taken into account the time spent in custody when imposing the sentences. The court held that the individual sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the total sentence was not contrary to the first limb of the totality principle.
The court found that the trial judge had considered the principles of sentencing and had given appropriate weight to the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the total sentence was not contrary to the first limb of the totality principle. The appeal was dismissed.