FURTAK -v- TIMMERS [2001] WASCA 65
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 65 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1196/2000 | 12 FEBRUARY 2001 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 13/02/01 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | EDWARD RICHARD FURTAK MARTIN ANTHONY TIMMERS |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Plea of guilty by endorsement on summons Plea in mitigation by duty counsel Magistrate not reading letter from appellant Whether denial of natural justice Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Obligation to give reasons for refusing to make spent conviction order Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Spent conviction order Principles |
Legislation: | Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 19(1)(c) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45(1) |
Case References: | Allen v Gittos (1995) 13 WAR 560 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 Dangerfield v Commissioner of Police [2000] WASCA 375 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154 Neale v Sloane, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970729; 6 August 1997 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Pettitt v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Stojkovski v Fitzgerald [1989] WAR 328 Tame v Fingleton (1974) 8 SASR 507 Tognini and McGuire (2000) 109 A Crim R 4 Angwin v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 9201337; 13 February 1992 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Haysdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hunter v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 424 King v Hill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950609; 10 November 1995 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mercer v Scantlebury, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980414; 27 July 1998 Pallot v Harrison, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950261; 12 May 1995 Papadopolous v Hunter (1995) 85 A Crim R 572 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561 Wiggan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8687; 24 January 1991 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
MARTIN ANTHONY TIMMERS
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Plea of guilty by endorsement on summons - Plea in mitigation by duty counsel - Magistrate not reading letter from appellant - Whether denial of natural justice
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Obligation to give reasons for refusing to make spent conviction order
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Spent conviction order - Principles
Legislation:
Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 19(1)(c)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s…
Continue reading Furtak v Timmers
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Furtak v Timmers [2001] WASCA 65
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 65
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Furtak v Timmers was heard by the Court of Appeal, where the appellant, Furtak, appealed against a sentence imposed by a magistrate. Furtak had entered a guilty plea by endorsement on a summons and, during the plea in mitigation, his duty counsel submitted a letter on his behalf. However, the magistrate did not read the letter before imposing the sentence, raising questions about whether this constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice. Additionally, Furtak argued that the magistrate had not provided adequate reasons for refusing to make a spent conviction order, and he sought clarification on the principles governing such orders.
The court was required to determine whether the magistrate's failure to read the letter from the appellant before sentencing constituted a denial of natural justice. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the magistrate was obligated to provide reasons for refusing to make a spent conviction order, and if so, what the principles were that should guide such decisions. The appeal hinged on whether these procedural errors warranted the setting aside of the sentence or the making of a spent conviction order.
The court found that the magistrate's failure to read the letter did not amount to a denial of natural justice, as the letter did not contain any new evidence or arguments that could have affected the outcome of the sentencing. The court also held that while a magistrate should provide reasons for refusing to make a spent conviction order, the absence of such reasons in this case did not necessitate the setting aside of the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and just, but found no basis to interfere with the magistrate's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether the magistrate's failure to read the letter from the appellant before sentencing constituted a denial of natural justice. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the magistrate was obligated to provide reasons for refusing to make a spent conviction order, and if so, what the principles were that should guide such decisions. The appeal hinged on whether these procedural errors warranted the setting aside of the sentence or the making of a spent conviction order.
The court found that the magistrate's failure to read the letter did not amount to a denial of natural justice, as the letter did not contain any new evidence or arguments that could have affected the outcome of the sentencing. The court also held that while a magistrate should provide reasons for refusing to make a spent conviction order, the absence of such reasons in this case did not necessitate the setting aside of the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and just, but found no basis to interfere with the magistrate's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.