Fripp v Carter

Case

[2012] WASC 288

No judgment structure available for this case.

FRIPP -v- CARTER [2012] WASC 288



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2012] WASC 288
Case No:SJA:1064/201224 JULY 2012
Coram:HALL J24/07/12
4Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced
B
PDF Version
Parties:KIM GORDON FRIPP
PHILLIP JOHN CARTER

Catchwords:

Criminal law
Magistrates Court appeal
Appeal against sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for stealing a car worth less than $1,000
Imprisonment not open
Appeal conceded

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 378, s 426

Case References:

Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CRIMINAL
CITATION : FRIPP -v- CARTER [2012] WASC 288 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 24 JULY 2012 DELIVERED : 24 JULY 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1064 of 2012 BETWEEN : KIM GORDON FRIPP
    Appellant

    AND

    PHILLIP JOHN CARTER
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE T J McINTYRE

File No : MH 944 of 2012


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Magistrates Court appeal - Appeal against sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for stealing a car worth less than $1,000 - Imprisonment not open - Appeal conceded

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 378, s 426


(Page 2)



Result:

Extension of time granted


Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : Ms M A Loveday
    Respondent : Ms S H Linton

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Marilyn Loveday
    Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)



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

Nil

(Page 3)

1 HALL J: On 13 March 2012 the appellant appeared in the Mandurah Magistrates Court and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. That sentence included a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for stealing a motor vehicle contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA). The appellant now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. As the appeal was commenced late the appellant also seeks an extension of time.

2 The prosecution notice and statement of material facts state that the value of the car that was the subject of the relevant charge was $800. Where a stealing charge relates to a car and is dealt with in the Magistrates Court, s 426 of the Criminal Code provides for the relevant summary conviction penalties. Where the value of the car does not exceed $1,000 the relevant maximum summary conviction penalty is a fine of $6,000 and no penalty of imprisonment is provided for in these circumstances. Had the charge been dealt with on indictment the maximum penalty that could have been imposed would have been 7 years' imprisonment. However, there was no application for this charge to be dealt with on indictment and, accordingly, it was not open to the magistrate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for this offence.

3 In those circumstances there is a clear error of law in respect of the penalty that was imposed. The respondent has, quite properly, conceded that the appeal should be allowed and a new sentence imposed for the stealing offence. Whilst the appeal notice was filed late, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to grant an extension of time because it is apparent that a miscarriage of justice would occur if an extension was not granted.

4 In regards to re-sentencing it is relevant to note that the circumstances of this offence were serious and that the appellant had a relevant criminal record. Any fine must therefore be sufficient to incorporate elements of both general and specific deterrence. The appellant is shortly due to be released from custody and has limited means to pay. His counsel sought that any fine be imposed with no time to pay so that he can serve time in custody in lieu of payment pursuant to s 59 Sentence Act 1995 (WA).

5 In those circumstances, the orders will be as follows:


    (1) the extension of time to appeal is granted;

    (2) leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on charge MH 944/2012 is granted.


(Page 4)
    (3) The appeal is allowed.

    (4) The sentence of 9 months' imprisonment on charge MH 944/2012 is set aside and in lieu thereof a fine of $1,500 is imposed with no time to pay.

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0