HUME -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 306
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 306 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:148/2000 | 7 SEPTEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J IPP J WHEELER J | 25/10/00 | |
| 8 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal against sentence refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GUBBY DOUGLAS HUME THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Stealing motor vehicle aggravated by reckless driving Wilful damage to property Stealing fuel Reckless driving Driving under suspension Failure to stop Unlawfully on premises Range of sentences commonly imposed Seriousness of offending Higher end of the scale Proportionality Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 371A, s 378, s 378(2)(a), s 426(2), s 444, s 465(2) Police Act 1892 (WA), s 66(13) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49, s 53, s 61 Sentencing Act 1995, s 32 |
Case References: | Bropho v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940197; 14 April 1994 Colbung v The Queen [1999] WASCA 138 Dewar v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970662; 2 December 1997 Howard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960638; 7 November 1996 McColgan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970035; 6 February 1997 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 McKenna v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 455 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HUME -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 306 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- IPP J
WHEELER J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Stealing motor vehicle aggravated by reckless driving - Wilful damage to property - Stealing fuel - Reckless driving - Driving under suspension - Failure to stop - Unlawfully on premises - Range of sentences commonly imposed - Seriousness of offending - Higher end of the scale - Proportionality - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 371A, s 378, s 378(2)(a), s 426(2), s 444, s 465(2)
Police Act 1892 (WA), s 66(13)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49, s 53, s 61
Sentencing Act 1995, s 32
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal against sentence refused
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr E J Myers
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Applicant : Legal Aid Commission
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bropho v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940197; 14 April 1994
Colbung v The Queen [1999] WASCA 138
Dewar v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970662; 2 December 1997
Howard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960638; 7 November 1996
McColgan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of…
Continue reading Hume v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hume v The Queen [2000] WASCA 306
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 306
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant was convicted of various charges, including stealing a motor vehicle, reckless driving, and wilful damage to property. The case was appealed to the High Court of Australia by the appellant, who sought a review of the sentence imposed. The central issue was whether the sentence was proportionate to the appellant's crimes. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive, particularly given the range of sentences commonly imposed for similar offences. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was proportionate to the appellant's offending and whether it was appropriate to consider the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes.
The court noted that the appellant had engaged in a series of serious offences, including stealing a motor vehicle, driving recklessly, and causing wilful damage to property. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offending, which involved not only the theft of a motor vehicle but also reckless driving, wilful damage, and stealing fuel. The court further noted that the appellant had driven under suspension, failed to stop, and had been unlawfully on the premises. The court concluded that the appellant's offending was at the higher end of the scale of seriousness. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences commonly imposed for such offences, and that it was proportionate to the appellant's crimes.
In light of the above, the court held that the sentence was proportionate to the appellant's offending and that the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes was an appropriate consideration. The court further held that the appellant's sentence was not excessive, and that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was not disproportionate to the appellant's offending, and that it was appropriate to consider the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes. The court concluded that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed, and that leave to appeal should be refused.
The court noted that the appellant had engaged in a series of serious offences, including stealing a motor vehicle, driving recklessly, and causing wilful damage to property. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offending, which involved not only the theft of a motor vehicle but also reckless driving, wilful damage, and stealing fuel. The court further noted that the appellant had driven under suspension, failed to stop, and had been unlawfully on the premises. The court concluded that the appellant's offending was at the higher end of the scale of seriousness. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences commonly imposed for such offences, and that it was proportionate to the appellant's crimes.
In light of the above, the court held that the sentence was proportionate to the appellant's offending and that the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes was an appropriate consideration. The court further held that the appellant's sentence was not excessive, and that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was not disproportionate to the appellant's offending, and that it was appropriate to consider the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes. The court concluded that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed, and that leave to appeal should be refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal against sentence refused
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.