ELDRIDGE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 41

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 41
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:218/1999	Heard:	2 FEBRUARY 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY J STEYTLER J WHEELER J	Delivered:	1/03/00
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	BRADLEY ELDRIDGE THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Seven counts of armed robbery and two counts of armed robbery in company Total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment Offenders' co-operation with authorities with respect to one armed robbery Whether failure to give appropriate discount
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 R v Arnold, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 9002; 21 August 1991 Rudd v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970225; 15 May 1997 Spence v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920697; 22 December 1992

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ELDRIDGE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 41 CORAM : KENNEDY J

STEYTLER J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 2 FEBRUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 1 MARCH 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 218 of 1999 BETWEEN : BRADLEY ELDRIDGE

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Seven counts of armed robbery and two counts of armed robbery in company - Total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment - Offenders' co-operation with authorities with respect to one armed robbery - Whether failure to give appropriate discount

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr P J Hogan

Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

Applicant : State Director of Legal Aid

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467

Case(s) also cited:

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
R v Arnold, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 9002; 21 August 1991
Rudd v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970225; 15 May 1997
Spence v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920697; 22 December 1992

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J: The applicant was presented in the Supreme Court on an indictment containing seven counts of armed robbery and two counts of armed robbery in company. The applicant pleaded guilty to each count.

2 The facts placed before the learned sentencing Judge with respect to the applicant's offences were as follows.

3 Count 1: At about 4.45 o'clock in the afternoon of Wednesday, 10 February 1999, the applicant went to the Amazon Drive Pharmacy in Beechboro with the intention of stealing drugs. He entered…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Eldridge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Eldridge v The Queen [2000] WASCA 41
Case: [2000] WASCA 41
Decision Date: 1 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Eldridge v The Queen involved the appellant, who was sentenced to a total of 12 years' imprisonment for seven counts of armed robbery and two counts of armed robbery in company. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the trial judge had failed to give an appropriate discount for the co-operation of the appellant and his co-offenders in relation to one of the armed robberies. The High Court of Australia was asked to consider the legal issues surrounding the appropriate discount for co-operation and whether the trial judge had applied the correct principles in sentencing.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge had erred in not giving an appropriate discount to the appellant for his co-operation with authorities in relation to one of the armed robberies. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the co-operation provided, which included providing information that led to the arrest of other individuals involved in the robberies. The appellant's legal team submitted that the discount should have been greater, considering the extent and nature of the co-operation provided. The central question was whether the trial judge had applied the correct principles in assessing the appropriate discount for co-operation, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate or excessive.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court held that the trial judge had considered the appellant's co-operation in arriving at the sentence and that the discount given was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court found that the trial judge had not erred in the assessment of the appropriate discount for co-operation, and that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly inadequate nor excessive. The Court concluded that the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately in sentencing the appellant, taking into account all relevant factors, including the co-operation provided by the appellant. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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.