FOREMAN -v- PARGIN & ANOR [2001] WASCA 351
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 351 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1144/2001 | 24 OCTOBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 9/11/01 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BRADLEY KEVIN FOREMAN GILES TIMOTHY PARGIN TREVOR LEONARD FISHER |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Whether parole and suspended imprisonment sufficiently considered Ambiguity in calculation of aggregate term Appeal against sentence allowed |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 378, s 409, s 414 Justices Act 1902, s 196(1)(b), s 199 Police Act 1892, s 20 Road Traffic Act 1974, s 49(1)(a), s 49(2) Sentencing Act 1995, s 6, s 39, s 87, s 89 |
Case References: | Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998 Cross v Cook [2001] WASCA 242 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315 Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999 Police v Cadd (1997) 69 SASR 150 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Holder & Johnston (1983) 13 A Crim R 375 R v Lambley (1989) 40 A Crim R 430 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Wroblewski (1999) 105 A Crim R 129 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Ratcliffe v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980651; 3 November 1998 Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66 Shooter v The Queen (1997) A Crim R 581 Swain v R (1989) 41 A Crim R 214 Wilkinson (1996) 85 A Crim R 353 Wongawol (1998) 101 A Crim R 350 Abdullah v Allen, unreported, SCt of WA, Library No 970367, 15 July 1997 Auburn v Sears, unreported, SCt of WA, Library No 970508, 2 October 1997 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation & Anor v The Commonwealth & Ors (1953) 94 CLR 621 Cunningham v Walsh [2000] WASCA 201 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 R v Chan (1999) 38 A Crim R 337 R v Davey (1980) 50 FLR 57 R v Percy [1975] Tas SR 62 R v Tait & Anor (1979) 46 FLR 386 Stewart v Waghorn & Anor [1999] WASCA 150 Thompson v The Queen (1993) 8 WAR 387 Vlek v The Queen, unreported, CCA SCt of WA, Library No 990153, 29 March 1999 Williams v Franzinelli [2001] WASCA 241 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : FOREMAN -v- PARGIN & ANOR [2001] WASCA 351 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 24 OCTOBER 2001 DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1144 of 2001 BETWEEN : BRADLEY KEVIN FOREMAN
- Appellant
AND
GILES TIMOTHY PARGIN
TREVOR LEONARD FISHER
Respondents
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Whether parole and suspended…
Continue reading Foreman v Pargin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Foreman v Pargin [2001] WASCA 351
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 351
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was lodged by the defendant, Pargin, against a sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The case involved a dispute over the adequacy of the sentencing process, specifically questioning whether parole and suspended imprisonment were sufficiently considered, and whether there was an ambiguity in the calculation of the aggregate term of the sentence. Pargin argued that the sentencing judge did not properly consider the benefits of parole and suspended imprisonment, and that the sentence imposed was not clearly articulated.
The court was required to determine whether the County Court had erred in its consideration of parole and the appropriateness of a suspended imprisonment term. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if there was an ambiguity in the calculation of the aggregate sentence that might have influenced the overall penalty imposed on the defendant.
The court found that the County Court had indeed failed to adequately consider the potential benefits of parole and suspended imprisonment. The court held that these factors are crucial in determining an appropriate sentence, particularly in cases where the defendant has a potential for rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court identified an ambiguity in the calculation of the aggregate term, which potentially impacted the fairness of the sentence. Given these findings, the court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, and the sentence should be set aside.
The court was required to determine whether the County Court had erred in its consideration of parole and the appropriateness of a suspended imprisonment term. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if there was an ambiguity in the calculation of the aggregate sentence that might have influenced the overall penalty imposed on the defendant.
The court found that the County Court had indeed failed to adequately consider the potential benefits of parole and suspended imprisonment. The court held that these factors are crucial in determining an appropriate sentence, particularly in cases where the defendant has a potential for rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court identified an ambiguity in the calculation of the aggregate term, which potentially impacted the fairness of the sentence. Given these findings, the court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, and the sentence should be set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.