FRASER -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 99

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 99
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:113/2002	Heard:	20 MARCH 2003
Coram:	ANDERSON J PARKER J MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	9/05/03
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JOEL PATRICK FRASER THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Young offender Series of offences Whether totality principle offended by accumulation of some sentences
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Case References:	Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59 Pezzino (1997) 92 A Crim R 135 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Pearce v The Queen [1998] 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen [1997] 189 CLR 295 Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 387 Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : FRASER -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 99 CORAM : ANDERSON J

PARKER J

MCKECHNIE J

HEARD : 20 MARCH 2003 DELIVERED : 9 MAY 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 113 of 2002 BETWEEN : JOEL PATRICK FRASER

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Young offender - Series of offences - Whether totality principle offended by accumulation of some sentences

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms A G Braddock SC

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant : Stephen Smith

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59
Pezzino (1997) 92 A Crim R 135

Case(s) also cited:

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Pearce v The Queen [1998] 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] 189 CLR 295
Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 387
Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999

(Page 3)

1 ANDERSON J: I have read the judgment of McKechnie J and agree that leave to appeal should be granted, but that the appeal should be dismissed. In my opinion, each individual sentence and the overall sentence reflected a sound exercise of sentencing discretion. Having regard to the number and seriousness of the offences for which sentence had to be passed, the applicant could not really expect to be treated any more leniently than he was.

2 As to the complaint that the Judge dwelt too much upon and appeared to give too much weight to the potential for harm arising from the breaking into the Western Power Corporation substations and switching off the circuit-breakers, cutting off electricity to wide areas of the suburbs,…

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 Fraser v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Fraser v The Queen [2003] WASCA 99
Case: [2003] WASCA 99
Decision Date: 9 MAY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fraser v The Queen involved the appellant, Fraser, who was appealing against his sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria for a series of criminal offences. The nature of the dispute was centred around the imposition of multiple sentences for separate offences and whether the cumulative effect of these sentences contravened the principle of totality, which requires that the aggregate penalty for multiple offences should not be excessive. Fraser argued that the total punishment was disproportionately severe in relation to the crimes committed. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the accumulation of some of Fraser's sentences for separate offences violated the principle of totality and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This involved an analysis of the individual sentences and their cumulative impact, as well as an assessment of whether the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, including the need to consider deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community.

The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the case, found that the sentences imposed were within the appropriate range for the offences committed and did not contravene the principle of totality. The court held that the total sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court also noted the importance of maintaining the deterrent effect of sentencing and ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted to the High Court of Australia.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that leave to appeal to the High Court was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed. This outcome meant that Fraser's original sentence stood, and no further appeal could be made to the High Court regarding the sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

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.