HLJT -v- HART [2012] WASCA 120

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASCA 120
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:39/2012	Heard:	11 MAY 2012
Coram:	McLURE P MAZZA JA	Delivered:	15/06/12
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HLJT CAMERON JOHN HART
Catchwords:	Criminal law Application for leave to appeal against sentence Armed robbery Whether totality principle infringed Whether parity principle infringed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 392
Case References:	Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 The State of Western Australia v Tyson (Unreported, WASCSR, INS 116 of 2008, 28 August 2009)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HLJT -v- HART [2012] WASCA 120 CORAM : McLURE P

MAZZA JA

HEARD : 11 MAY 2012 DELIVERED : 15 JUNE 2012 FILE NO/S : CACR 39 of 2012 BETWEEN : HLJT

Appellant

AND

CAMERON JOHN HART

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CHILDREN'S COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : REYNOLDS DCJ

File No : CC 4801 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Armed robbery - Whether totality principle infringed - Whether parity principle infringed - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 392

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S Gabriel

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Stephen Gabriel

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
The State of Western Australia v Tyson (Unreported, WASCSR, INS 116 of 2008, 28 August 2009)

(Page 3)

1 McLURE P: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 12 months' immediate detention for an offence of armed robbery contrary to s 392 of the Criminal Code (WA) (the Code). The appellant committed the offence on 4 October 2011 when he was aged 16 years and 10 months.

2 On 20 May 2011 the appellant was sentenced for multiple offences, including an offence of aggravated robbery for which he was sentenced to 8 months' detention. That offence was committed on 4 February 2011.

3 On 12 October 2011 the appellant was sentenced to 6 months' detention for offences (stealing a motor vehicle, receiving and burglary) committed in November 2010. The sentence of 6 months was backdated to 5 August 2011.

4 The sentence the subject of this appeal was imposed by the President of the Children's Court of Western Australia on 6 February 2012. The facts of the offending are as follows. At about 10.20 pm on 4 October 2011 the appellant was at Loch Street Train Station on Railway Road in Karrakatta, having…

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 HLJT v Hart

Details

AGLC: HLJT v Hart [2012] WASCA 120
Case: [2012] WASCA 120
Decision Date: 15 JUNE 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of HLJT v Hart, the respondent, a convicted armed robber, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the High Court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, thereby contravening the principles of totality and parity. The applicant argued that the cumulative sentence for his various criminal activities was disproportionately high, and that it did not align with sentences imposed on similarly situated offenders.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive in light of the totality and parity principles. The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the trial judge had appropriately considered the cumulative effect of the applicant's criminal conduct. The court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and was proportionate to the crimes committed. The court also held that the principle of parity was not infringed, as the sentence was consistent with those imposed on other offenders with similar criminal histories.

Given the court's determination that the sentence was proportionate and consistent with the principles of totality and parity, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed. The High Court's decision reaffirms the importance of considering the totality of an offender's criminal conduct and ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed, while also taking into account the principle of parity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.