HOWLETT -v- HESP [2012] WASC 351
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 351 | |
| 20/09/2012 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1078/2012 | 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 10/09/12 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GEORGE HAMILTON HOWLETT MICHAEL JOHN HESP |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Aggravated burglary Multiple counts of criminal damage Three incidents over four months Past history of offending Damage by graffiti Whether total effective sentence of 12 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive Whether sentence should have been suspended |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bergh v Ashton [2011] WASC 69 Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Dreja v Sloan [2011] WASC 245 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jones v Sadler (No 2) [2010] WASC 53 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 McDougall v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 232 P (a child) v Thompson [2011] WASC 120 Pickett v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 291 Plant v Harrington [2010] WASC 364 Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139 Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82 Wiltshire v Mafi [2010] WASCA 111 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
MICHAEL JOHN HESP
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY
File No : FR 7056 of 2012, FR 7057 of 2012, FR 7058 of 2012, FR 7059 of 2012, FR 7060 of 2012, FR 7061 of 2012, FR 7062 of 2012, FR 7063 of 2012, FR 7064 of 2012
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Aggravated burglary - Multiple counts of criminal damage - Three incidents over four months - Past history of offending - Damage by graffiti - Whether total effective sentence of 12 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive - Whether sentence should have been suspended
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr S F Rafferty
Respondent : Mr J Newton-Palmer
Solicitors:
Appellant : Seamus Rafferty
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bergh v Ashton [2011] WASC 69
Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Dreja v Sloan [2011] WASC 245
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jones v Sadler (No 2) [2010] WASC 53
(Page 3)
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
McDougall v The State of Western Australia [2009]…
Continue reading Howlett v Hesp
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Western Australia
- Case
- [2012] WASC 351
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Howlett v Hesp, the appellant, Howlett, sought to appeal against his sentence for aggravated burglary and multiple counts of criminal damage. The appellant's criminal activities spanned three separate incidents over a four-month period and included damaging property by means of graffiti. The appellant had a previous history of offending, which was taken into account by the sentencing judge. The appellant's argument centred on whether the total effective sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentence should have been suspended. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the total effective sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The court also considered whether the sentence should have been suspended, given the appellant's background and the nature of his offending. The court examined the principles of sentencing and the discretion of the trial judge in imposing a sentence.
In determining the appeal, the court considered the gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the sentencing principles applicable to the case. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor an abuse of the court's discretion. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's previous offending history and the need for general deterrence in imposing the sentence. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
The court's final orders were that leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was upheld, and the appellant's appeal against sentence was unsuccessful.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the total effective sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The court also considered whether the sentence should have been suspended, given the appellant's background and the nature of his offending. The court examined the principles of sentencing and the discretion of the trial judge in imposing a sentence.
In determining the appeal, the court considered the gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the sentencing principles applicable to the case. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor an abuse of the court's discretion. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's previous offending history and the need for general deterrence in imposing the sentence. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
The court's final orders were that leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was upheld, and the appellant's appeal against sentence was unsuccessful.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.