DONNACHY -v- RIEGERT & ANOR [2004] WASCA 48
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 48 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1144/2003 | 25 FEBRUARY 2004 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 18/03/04 | |
| 38 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal SJA 1144 of 2003 allowed, Appeal SJA 1143 of 2003 allowed in part, otherwise dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARTINE CELESTE DONNACHY CHARLES DOUGLAS RIEGERT ASHLEY GRAHAM KEITH GOY |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal Justices Traffic offences Eighth conviction for driving under suspension Breach of suspended sentence of imprisonment order for similar offence Pleas of guilty Defendant unrepresented Sentences of imprisonment Whether should have been given adjournment for legal advice Criminal law and procedure Appeal Justices Escape legal custody Sentence Principles Criminal law and procedure Appeal Justices Traffic offences Driving under suspension Subsequent offence Fact that appellant already serving a sentence of imprisonment for similar offence |
Legislation: | Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 8(2) |
Case References: | Betts v Hardcastle (2001) 23 WAR 559 Chinnery v Hansen (2001) 125 A Crim R 426 Cross v Cook [2001] WASCA 242 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Fernando v Keady, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940135; 4 March 1994 Furtak v Timmers [2001] WASCA 65 Griekspoor v Scott (2000) 23 WAR 530 Jones v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920652; 7 December 1992 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 Salter v Seebohm (1972) 4 SASR 192 Voisey v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8273; 30 May 1990 Walker v The Queen (1998) 101 A Crim R 152 Weinel v Fedcheshen (1995) 65 SASR 156 Western Australia v Landers (2000) 22 WAR 278 Wood v Marsh [2003] WASCA 95 Zammit v Illich [2003] WASCA 88 Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Cooling v Steel (1971) 2 SASR 239 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195 Hall v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 364 Higgins v Robinson [2000] WASCA 311 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 King v Lankford [2000] WASCA 214 Nguyen v The Queen (2001) 118 A Crim R 519 R v Hicks (1996) 89 A Crim R 333 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Schagen (1993) 65 A Crim R 500 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Consolidated with SJA 1143 of 2003 on 23 December 2003
- Appellant
AND
CHARLES DOUGLAS RIEGERT
First Respondent
ASHLEY GRAHAM KEITH GOY
Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal…
Continue reading Donnachy v Riegert
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Donnachy v Riegert [2004] WASCA 48
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 48
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Donnachy, was charged with driving while under a suspension order, marking his eighth conviction for a similar offence. He was also charged with escaping legal custody, having breached a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a previous offence. Both charges were heard by a justice of the peace. The appellant pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to imprisonment. He was unrepresented at the hearing. The appellant appealed against the sentences, arguing that he should have been given an adjournment to obtain legal advice, and that the sentence for the second charge should be quashed as he was already serving a sentence of imprisonment for a similar offence.
The court considered whether the justice of the peace erred in not granting an adjournment for the appellant to obtain legal advice. It also considered whether the sentence for the second charge should have been quashed due to the appellant already serving a sentence of imprisonment for a similar offence. The court found that the justice of the peace should have granted an adjournment to allow the appellant to obtain legal advice. However, the court found that the sentence for the second charge was not quashed because the court considered the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the offence and the offender.
The appeal against the sentences was allowed in part, with the sentences quashed and the matter remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing. The court held that the justice of the peace should have granted an adjournment to allow the appellant to obtain legal advice. However, the court found that the sentence for the second charge was not quashed because the court considered the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the offence and the offender. The sentences were quashed and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing.
The court considered whether the justice of the peace erred in not granting an adjournment for the appellant to obtain legal advice. It also considered whether the sentence for the second charge should have been quashed due to the appellant already serving a sentence of imprisonment for a similar offence. The court found that the justice of the peace should have granted an adjournment to allow the appellant to obtain legal advice. However, the court found that the sentence for the second charge was not quashed because the court considered the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the offence and the offender.
The appeal against the sentences was allowed in part, with the sentences quashed and the matter remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing. The court held that the justice of the peace should have granted an adjournment to allow the appellant to obtain legal advice. However, the court found that the sentence for the second charge was not quashed because the court considered the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the offence and the offender. The sentences were quashed and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal SJA 1144 of 2003 allowed, Appeal SJA 1143 of 2003 allowed in part, otherwise dismissed
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.