FISHER -v- R [1999] WASCA 122
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 122 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:35/1999 | 20 JULY 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ IPP J OWEN J | 20/07/99 | |
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DARRYL RICHARD FISHER THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Appeal against sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for burglary and two counts of obtaining money by deceit Need to firm up sentences in light of increased prevalence of home burglaries Increase in maximum penalty by Parliament Not excessive |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 401(2)(b), s 409(1) |
Case References: | Cheshire v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7924 Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81 Little v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970041; 3 February 1997 Nguyen v R and Tran v R [1999] WASCA 54 Pezzino v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 135 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : FISHER -v- R [1999] WASCA 122 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- IPP J
OWEN J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Appeal against sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for burglary and two counts of obtaining money by deceit - Need to firm up sentences in light of increased prevalence of home burglaries - Increase in maximum penalty by Parliament - Not excessive
Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 401(2)(b), s 409(1)
Result:
Application refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr D J A Hockton
Respondent : Mr K P Bates & Mrs J Andretich
Solicitors:
Applicant : Wojtowicz Kelly
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cheshire v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7924
Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81
Little v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970041; 3 February 1997
Nguyen v R and Tran v R [1999] WASCA 54
Pezzino v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 135
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MALCOLM CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence of 2 years' imprisonment. On 19 February 1999 the applicant, following his plea of guilty, was convicted on three counts in an indictment, being one count of burglary contrary to s 4012(b) of the Criminal Code, and two counts of obtaining money by deceit with intent to defraud contrary to s 409(1) by endeavouring to sell property to Cash Converters which had been obtained in the burglary.
2 The facts were that on the morning of 23 July 1998 the applicant went to premises in James Street, Bassendean with the intention of breaking in and stealing whatever he could find. He kicked in the rear door to gain entry and once…
Continue reading Fisher v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Fisher v The Queen [1999] WASCA 122
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 122
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Fisher v The Queen, the appellant sought to appeal a sentence of two years' imprisonment for a burglary and two counts of obtaining money by deceit. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive given the current sentencing framework for such offences. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the evolving nature of home burglaries and the increase in the maximum penalty by Parliament.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive or inappropriate given the appellant's offending and the changes in sentencing guidelines. The Court needed to consider the seriousness of the crimes committed, the need to deter such offences, and the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The Court also had to weigh the appellant's submissions against the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.
In delivering the judgment, the Court noted the increased prevalence of home burglaries and the amendments to the maximum penalties by Parliament. It held that the sentence of two years' imprisonment was not excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences. The Court emphasised the importance of firming up sentences to maintain public confidence in the justice system and to ensure that penalties are commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed. The appeal was thus refused, and the original sentence upheld.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive or inappropriate given the appellant's offending and the changes in sentencing guidelines. The Court needed to consider the seriousness of the crimes committed, the need to deter such offences, and the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The Court also had to weigh the appellant's submissions against the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.
In delivering the judgment, the Court noted the increased prevalence of home burglaries and the amendments to the maximum penalties by Parliament. It held that the sentence of two years' imprisonment was not excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences. The Court emphasised the importance of firming up sentences to maintain public confidence in the justice system and to ensure that penalties are commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed. The appeal was thus refused, and the original sentence upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application refused
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.