Fernie v The State of Western Australia

In Fernie v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, Jack Patrick Fernie, appealed against the sentences imposed by the District Court of Western Australia, seeking leave to appeal against the sentences for aggravated home burglary, unlawful wounding, and unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. The Court of Appeal, comprising Buss P, Mazza JA, and the appellant self-represented, considered the appeal on 7 February 2022 and delivered their judgment on 18 February 2022. The court had to determine if the individual sentences were manifestly excessive and if the total effective sentence infringed the first limb of the totality principle.

The court noted that the appellant's appeal was filed almost 11 months late, and thus, whether an extension of time was granted would depend on the merits of the appeal. The court outlined that sentencing is a discretionary exercise, and an appellate court can only intervene if the appellant demonstrates a material error. In assessing whether a sentence is manifestly excessive or inadequate, the court should consider the maximum sentence prescribed by law for the crime, the standards of sentencing customarily imposed, the place that the criminal conduct occupies in the scale of seriousness of crimes of that type, and the offender's personal circumstances.

The court found that the appellant's claim that the individual sentences on counts 1 and 2 were manifestly excessive had no merit, as each offence was a serious example of its type and the sentences imposed were well within the discretionary range. The court also found that the sentence imposed on count 3 was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the relevant sentencing factors and the circumstances of the offender. Thus, the ground of appeal had no reasonable prospect of succeeding, and the application for an extension of time was refused.

In conclusion, the court refused the appellant leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The orders made were: (1) the application for an extension of time was refused; (2) leave to appeal was refused; and (3) the appeal was dismissed.