GEORGE -v- BIRTWISTLE [2003] WASCA 75
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 75 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1114/2002 | 17 & 28 MARCH 2003 | |
| Coram: | SCOTT J | 4/04/03 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RICHARDSON WINFRED BENO GEORGE GORDON BIRTWISTLE |
Catchwords: | Criminal Law Appeal Sentencing Fraud utilising credit vouchers and purchased keycards and PIN numbers Two groups of multiple counts Second group of charges committed whilst on bail for first Sentencing factors Disparity of sentence with co-accused Whether substantial miscarriage of justice Personal and general deterrance Fraud involved large amounts of money Whether appellable error No substantial miscarriage of justice |
Legislation: | Justices Act 1902, s 199(1)(b) |
Case References: | Harwood v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950372; 27 July 1995 Hegney v Cheeseman and Bailey, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940466; 1 September 1994 Lavater v McCormack, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950033; 30 January 1995 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Pop v The Queen [2000] WASCA 283 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Gordon [2000] WASCA 401 Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 37 Britten v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940079; 21 February 1994 Dixon v Scott [2002] WASCA 280 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Parsons v The Queen (1993) 66 A Crim R 550 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; (1998) HCA 57 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Ireland [1971-1972] 126 CLR 321 R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159 R v White [2002] WASCA 112 Shaw v The Queen (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 Smoker v The Queen [2001] WASCA 388 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Woods v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 341 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : GEORGE -v- BIRTWISTLE [2003] WASCA 75 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 17 & 28 MARCH 2003 DELIVERED : 4 APRIL 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1114 of 2002 BETWEEN : RICHARDSON WINFRED BENO GEORGE
- Appellant
AND
GORDON BIRTWISTLE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal Law - Appeal - Sentencing - Fraud utilising credit vouchers and purchased keycards and PIN numbers - Two groups of multiple counts - Second group of charges committed whilst on bail for first - Sentencing factors - Disparity of sentence with co-accused - Whether substantial miscarriage of justice - Personal and general deterrance - Fraud involved large amounts of money - Whether appellable error - No substantial miscarriage of justice
Legislation:
Justices Act 1902, s 199(1)(b)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr S B Watters
Respondent : Ms K S Hitchins 17 March 2003
Ms E A Benwell 28 March 2003
Solicitors:
Appellant : Verschuer Edward
Respondent : State Director of Public…
Continue reading George v Birtwistle
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- George v Birtwistle [2003] WASCA 75
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
George was charged with and convicted of a series of fraud offences involving credit vouchers and keycards, in two separate groups of charges. The second group of charges was committed while he was on bail for the first group. George appealed his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and a substantial miscarriage of justice compared to his co-accused. The appeal hinged on the disparity in sentencing, the principles of general and personal deterrence, and whether the trial judge made an error in sentencing.
The court examined the trial judge's sentencing remarks and found no evidence of an error in principle or an unsustainable conclusion on the evidence. The trial judge had considered the need for deterrence, the seriousness of the offences, and the disparity with the co-accused's sentence. The court held that the sentence was within the range of reasonable responses and did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence upheld.
The court examined the trial judge's sentencing remarks and found no evidence of an error in principle or an unsustainable conclusion on the evidence. The trial judge had considered the need for deterrence, the seriousness of the offences, and the disparity with the co-accused's sentence. The court held that the sentence was within the range of reasonable responses and did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence upheld.
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.