Harrison v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, Harrison, appealed against his sentence for two counts of aggravated burglary. The trial judge had imposed immediate terms of imprisonment of two years for each count, to be served concurrently. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the terms of imprisonment should have been suspended.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the terms of imprisonment should have been suspended. The court considered the nature of the offending, which involved two counts of aggravated burglary, and the appellant's criminal history. The court also considered the appellant's guilty pleas and the circumstances in which they were entered.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charges on the first available court sitting, indicating a willingness to accept responsibility for his actions. The court also considered the appellant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending and the need to deter the appellant and others from committing similar offences. The court also held that there were no grounds for suspending the terms of imprisonment.

The appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The terms of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge were not disturbed.