HAMLETT -v- WHITNEY [2013] WASC 100
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 100 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1021/2013 | 15 MARCH 2013 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 22/03/13 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Extension of time granted Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN PATRICK HAMLETT CHRISTOPHER JOHN WHITNEY |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Breach of bail Breach of protective conditions Total effective sentence of 6 months and 1 day Whether individual sentences manifestly excessive Whether principle infringed |
Legislation: | Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 51 Criminal Code (WA), s 74A, s 313 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 7 s 86 |
Case References: | Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 Indich v Bracknell [2005] WASC 225 Kelly v Lockwood [2005] WASC 18 Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319 Sabau v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 3 Spratt v Canavan [2006] WASC 223 Turvey v Clifton [2012] WASC 322 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER JOHN WHITNEY
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE E C DE VRIES
File No : GN 4103 of 2012, GN 4571 of 2012, GN 4572 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Breach of bail - Breach of protective conditions - Total effective sentence of 6 months and 1 day - Whether individual sentences manifestly excessive - Whether principle infringed
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 51
Criminal Code (WA), s 74A, s 313
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 7 s 86
Result:
Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D D Brunello
Respondent : Mr J F Bennett
Solicitors:
Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Indich v Bracknell [2005] WASC 225
Kelly v Lockwood [2005] WASC 18
Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319
Sabau v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 3
Spratt v Canavan [2006] WASC 223
Turvey v Clifton [2012] WASC 322
(Page 3)
- HALL J:
Introduction
1 On 16 January 2013 the appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 6 months and 1 day for three offences of breaching bail contrary…
Continue reading Hamlett v Whitney
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- HAMLETT -v- WHITNEY [2013] WASC 100
- Case
- [2013] WASC 100
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hamlett v Whitney involved the sentencing of the respondent, Whitney, following a breach of bail and protective conditions. The respondent had previously been sentenced to a total effective sentence of six months and one day, which was the subject of appeal. The High Court of Australia was called upon to consider whether the individual sentences were manifestly excessive and whether any principle was thereby infringed.
The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court examined whether the total effective sentence of six months and one day was disproportionate to the breach of bail and protective conditions. It was necessary to consider whether the sentence imposed contravened any legal principles, such as proportionality, which dictate that the punishment should fit the crime.
The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the individual sentences, while severe, were not disproportionate to the breach of bail and protective conditions. The court reasoned that the cumulative effect of the breaches warranted a significant sentence to maintain the integrity of the legal system and to deter future breaches. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and leave to appeal was denied.
The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The total effective sentence of six months and one day was upheld as proportionate to the breaches committed.
The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court examined whether the total effective sentence of six months and one day was disproportionate to the breach of bail and protective conditions. It was necessary to consider whether the sentence imposed contravened any legal principles, such as proportionality, which dictate that the punishment should fit the crime.
The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the individual sentences, while severe, were not disproportionate to the breach of bail and protective conditions. The court reasoned that the cumulative effect of the breaches warranted a significant sentence to maintain the integrity of the legal system and to deter future breaches. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and leave to appeal was denied.
The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The total effective sentence of six months and one day was upheld as proportionate to the breaches committed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal granted
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.