HARVEY -v- ROBERTSON [1999] WASCA 120

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 120
Case No:	SJA:1045/1999	Heard:	19 JULY 1999
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	19/07/99
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Fine reduced
PDF Version

Parties:	WILLIAM RONALD HARVEY JOHN ROBERTSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Principles applicable to fines
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Bartlett-Torr v Davis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6148; 24 December 1985 Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 R v Richmond (1920) LVR 9 R v Timms (1921) VLR 503 R v Wicks (1989) 44 A Crim R 147 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 LCR 465

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : HARVEY -v- ROBERTSON [1999] WASCA 120 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 19 JULY 1999 DELIVERED : 19 JULY 1999 FILE NO/S : SJA 1045 of 1999 BETWEEN : WILLIAM RONALD HARVEY

Applicant

AND

JOHN ROBERTSON

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Principles applicable to fines

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Fine reduced

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr R D Young

Respondent : Ms S E Lightfoot

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Bartlett-Torr v Davis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6148; 24 December 1985
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
R v Richmond (1920) LVR 9
R v Timms (1921) VLR 503
R v Wicks (1989) 44 A Crim R 147
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 LCR 465

(Page 3)

McKECHNIE J :

Introduction

1 Mr Jervis owned a boat. He left it on a trailer at his house. It was worth $10,000 and much to his distress, no doubt, on 1 December 1997 it was stolen. However, he was more fortunate than some. Police recovered the boat and trailer, although not the outboard, at the appellant's house on 6 April 1998. Work had been done to disguise it. The identification numbers had been removed and the boat sanded down. The motor was missing.

2 The appellant was charged with stealing or alternatively receiving. He stood trial on 17 February 1999. He was convicted of receiving and fined $7000. On this fine he appeals on the following grounds.

3 The learned Magistrate erred in that:

(i) The amount of the fine was manifestly excessive having regard to the value of the property concerned, the fact that it was recovered and the applicant's lack of any relevant criminal history.

(ii) Account was taken of an irrelevant consideration; namely, that his Worship commented that the applicant should be imprisoned for perjury.

4 The Magistrate found that the appellant had possession because he was going to do a professional paint job and disguise the boat. The appellant is by trade a panel beater. The Magistrate was unable to determine whether he was disguising the boat for himself or for the thief but considered that…

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 Harvey v Robertson

Details

AGLC: Harvey v Robertson [1999] WASCA 120
Case: [1999] WASCA 120
Decision Date: 19 JULY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harvey v Robertson involved a sentencing appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Harvey, was convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a fine. Harvey appealed the amount of the fine, arguing it was excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed. The respondent, Robertson, was the state entity that sought to uphold the original sentence.

The central issue before the court was whether the fine imposed on Harvey was just and appropriate in light of the principles governing sentencing for fines. The court was required to determine whether the fine was excessive under the relevant legislative framework and judicial guidelines. This involved an analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the imposition of fines, particularly in relation to proportionality, deterrence, and the circumstances of the offence and offender.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the severity and nature of the offence, the offender's personal circumstances, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The court found that while the offence warranted punishment, the original fine was indeed excessive. It was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the financial means of the offender. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the fine to a more reasonable amount, considering it just and appropriate under the circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and the fine was reduced accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Fine reduced

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.