FRENCH -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 251

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 251
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:271/2000	Heard:	18 JULY 2001
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	24/08/01
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal 271/2000 allowed and sentence reduced Appeal 272/2000 dismissed
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	ANTHONY JOHN FRENCH THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Offences closely related in time and place Whether order for concurrency should be made Whether totality principle breached when two sentences imposed on offences in the one indictment No new principles
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA)
Case References:	Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416 Atholwood (2000) 110 A Crim R 417 "CA" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 176 Honeybone v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960430; 7 June 1996 James v The Queen [2000] WASCA 100 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Johnston v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960153; 22 March 1996 Kastercum (1972) 56 Crim App Rep 298 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Pinkstone (2000) 114 A Crim R 377 Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 R v Dickson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990203; 23 April 1999 R v Leggett [2000] WASCA 327 R v Westall [1998] WASCA 137 Ruane (1979) 1 A Crim R 284 Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159 Woods v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940388; 28 July 1994

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : FRENCH -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 251 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

ANDERSON J

McKECHNIE J

HEARD : 18 JULY 2001 DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 271 of 2000

CCA 272 of 2000

BETWEEN : ANTHONY JOHN FRENCH

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Offences closely related in time and place - Whether order for concurrency should be made - Whether totality principle breached when two sentences imposed on offences in the one indictment - No new principles

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal 271/2000 allowed and sentence reduced

Appeal 272/2000 dismissed

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms B J Lonsdale

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant : Dwyer Durack

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416

Case(s) also cited:

Atholwood (2000) 110 A Crim R 417
"CA" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 176
Honeybone v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960430; 7 June 1996
James v The Queen [2000] WASCA 100
Jarvis v The…

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 French v The Queen

Details

AGLC: French v The Queen [2001] WASCA 251
Case: [2001] WASCA 251
Decision Date: 24 AUGUST 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of French v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences including burglary, theft, and receiving stolen property. The appellant appealed the sentencing of these convictions, arguing that the sentences imposed on the offences in the one indictment breached the totality principle by not being concurrent. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the orders for concurrency should be made and whether the totality principle was breached when the sentences were imposed. The court found that there were no new principles to be considered in this matter and that the totality principle was not breached. The court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the sentence, but dismissed the appeal in part. The final order was that the appeal 271/2000 was allowed and the sentence was reduced, while appeal 272/2000 was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the facts of the case and the legal principles already established in previous cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 271/2000 allowed and sentence reduced

Appeal 272/2000 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.