HOOKER -v- THE POLICE [2006] WASC 188

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 188
Published:	29/08/2006
Case No:	SJA:1045/2005	Heard:	11 AUGUST 2006
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	11/08/06
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Sentence made concurrent
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	LAURANCE ANTHONY HOOKER THE POLICE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Escaping legal custody General principle sentence should be cumulative Exceptional circumstances
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HOOKER -v- THE POLICE [2006] WASC 188 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 11 AUGUST 2006 DELIVERED : 11 AUGUST 2006 PUBLISHED : 29 AUGUST 2006 FILE NO/S : SJA 1045 of 2005 BETWEEN : LAURANCE ANTHONY HOOKER

Appellant

AND

THE POLICE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P M HOGAN

File No : PE 28684 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Escaping legal custody - General principle sentence should be cumulative - Exceptional circumstances

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Sentence made concurrent

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr S M Stocks

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: This matter has a considerable history. On 10 May 1988 in the Perth District Court, the applicant was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 11 months' imprisonment with a minimum of 17 months for 4 counts of burglary. A subsequent appeal, which was lodged by him, was abandoned. On 29 September 1988 he walked out of the Karnet Prison Farm. On 3 October 1988 a warrant was issued for his arrest. The applicant, however, had fled the State. The warrant was executed in New South Wales and the applicant was kept in custody for a considerable time until the warrant was discharged in the District Court of New South Wales apparently because the West Australian authorities did not then seek extradition.

2 On 9 May 2004 the applicant was arrested in Queensland and extradited to Western Australia on 20 June 2004 with subsequent court appearances until the matter was dealt with by a Magistrate on 20 January 2005. The Magistrate overruled the applicant's submissions that the warrant was defective and an abuse of process. The applicant was convicted as indeed he then had to be in light of his admissions. The Magistrate sentenced the applicant "taking into account the need to set a sentence that will deter walkouts from minimum security prisons" to a term of 3 months' imprisonment cumulative on the existing sentence.

3 On 3 April 2005 the applicant sought an extension of time within which to appeal and leave to appeal on three grounds. Two grounds related to the issue of the defective warrant and the Magistrate's view that she did not have the authority to decide the matter.…

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 Hooker v The Police

Details

AGLC: Hooker v The Police [2006] WASC 188
Case: [2006] WASC 188
Decision Date: 29 AUGUST 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hooker v The Police involved the appellant who had escaped from legal custody. The issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed for the offence of escaping legal custody should be cumulative or concurrent with the sentence being served for the underlying offence. The appellant had been sentenced to imprisonment for the offence of escaping legal custody, in addition to the sentence being served for the underlying offence of armed robbery, resulting in a cumulative sentence. The appellant appealed, arguing that the sentence should be concurrent, rather than cumulative.

The court examined the general principle that a sentence for an offence of escaping legal custody should be cumulative, as it is a serious offence that undermines the administration of justice. However, the court also considered whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a concurrent sentence. The court noted that the appellant had shown remorse, had cooperated with authorities, and had not posed a risk of reoffending. The court found that these factors constituted exceptional circumstances that justified a concurrent sentence.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the sentence for the offence of escaping legal custody be made concurrent with the sentence being served for the underlying offence. The court emphasised that this decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and did not set a precedent for all cases involving escaping legal custody. The court also noted that the principle of cumulative sentencing remained an important tool in deterring and punishing serious offences that undermine the administration of justice.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed and that the sentence for the offence of escaping legal custody be made concurrent with the sentence being served for the underlying offence. The court's decision provides guidance to sentencing courts in considering whether exceptional circumstances exist that warrant a concurrent sentence for an offence of escaping legal custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Sentence made concurrent

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.