Criminal law and procedure - Three counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery in company - Whether depression of applicant accounted for his criminal behaviour - Effective sentence of 13 years' imprisonment - Record of previous convictions incorrect - Sentence reduced to 11 years and 6 months

Legislation:

Mental Health Act 1966, s 43(2)(a)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed to extent of reducing effective term to 11-1/2 years

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346
Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
B v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA: Library No 950482; 13 September 1995
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ottewell [1970] AC 642
Hellings v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940440; 24 August 1994
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jarvis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930341; 14 June 1993
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007
Magee v R [1980] WAR 117
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416
Peters v The Queen [2000] WASCA 28
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Duff [1999] WASC 124
R v French (1994) 15 Cr App R (S) 194
R v McAndrew [1999] WASCA 124
R v Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Robinson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980587; 9 October 1998
Shooter v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970628; 21 November 1997
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No980152; 6 April 1998
Vasich v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980038; 6 February 1998
Veen v The Queen (1979) 143 CLR 458
Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467
Walsh v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960471; 26 August 1996
Wicks v The Queen (1989) 3 WAR 372
Yanko v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960030; 23 January 1996

KENNEDY J: The essential facts are set out in the reasons for judgment of Wallwork J, and it is unnecessary…

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 Ginn v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ginn v The Queen [2000] WASCA 95
Case: [2000] WASCA 95
Decision Date: 12 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ginn, was convicted on three counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery in company. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether the applicant's depression was a mitigating factor in his criminal behaviour, and if so, whether it warranted a reduction in his sentence. The Court was also required to consider whether the record of the applicant's previous convictions was accurate, as it was suggested that the applicant had been incorrectly listed as having previous convictions for armed robbery.

The Court held that the applicant's depression did contribute to his criminal behaviour, and that this was a relevant mitigating factor to be considered in determining an appropriate sentence. The Court found that the effective sentence of 13 years' imprisonment was excessive, and that a reduced sentence of 11 years and 6 months would be more appropriate. The Court also found that the record of the applicant's previous convictions was incorrect, as he had not been previously convicted of armed robbery.

The High Court of Australia reduced the applicant's sentence to 11 years and 6 months imprisonment, taking into account the mitigating factor of the applicant's depression. The Court also directed that the record of the applicant's previous convictions be corrected to reflect his actual criminal history. This decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each offender when determining an appropriate sentence, and the need for accurate record-keeping in criminal proceedings.

Orders