HAMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 369

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 369
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL	Published:	28/11/2000
Case No:	CCA:66/2000	Heard:	1 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:	WALLWORK J MURRAY J MILLER J	Delivered:	1/11/00
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal refused
PDF Version

Parties:	JANTO HAMAN THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Stealing offences and offences of forgery and uttering 87 counts in indictment Total sum obtained was $649,743 Effective 7 years' imprisonment Whether sentence too severe
Legislation:	Criminal Code
Case References:	Birch (1993) 69 A Crim R 181 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Barrick (1985) 81 Cr App R 78 Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998 Hayes v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920126; 3 March 1992 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 R v Kite, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950659; 1 December 1995 R v Sivandran, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960154; 22 March 1996 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Wilkinson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960035; 25 January 1996 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HAMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 369 CORAM : WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

MILLER J

HEARD : 1 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2000 PUBLISHED : 28 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 66 of 2000 BETWEEN : JANTO HAMAN

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Stealing offences and offences of forgery and uttering - 87 counts in indictment - Total sum obtained was $649,743 - Effective 7 years' imprisonment - Whether sentence too severe

Legislation:

Criminal Code

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D McKenna

Respondent : Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Director of Legal Aid

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Birch (1993) 69 A Crim R 181
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665

Case(s) also cited:

Barrick (1985) 81 Cr App R 78
Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998
Hayes v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920126; 3 March 1992
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Kite, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950659; 1 December 1995
R v Sivandran, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960154; 22 March 1996
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
R v Wilkinson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960035; 25 January 1996
Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: On 14 March 2000 in the District Court at Perth,…

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 Haman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Haman v The Queen [2000] WASCA 369
Case: [2000] WASCA 369
Decision Date: 28 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haman v The Queen involved an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia. Haman was found guilty of 87 counts of theft, forgery, and uttering, involving a total sum of $649,743. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was excessive, considering the totality of the offending and Haman's personal circumstances.

The legal question the court had to resolve was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the totality of the offending and the relevant mitigating factors. Haman's legal representatives argued that the sentence was too harsh, particularly considering the significant personal and family circumstances that had not been fully taken into account by the sentencing judge. The prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate, given the gravity and extent of the offending.

The court examined the totality of the offending, including the number of counts and the substantial financial loss caused. The court also considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for denunciation and deterrence, alongside the need for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it had adequately reflected the seriousness of the offending and the need to protect the community. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors, and thus the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for such serious offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.