JONES -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 316

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 316
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:205/2002	Heard:	11 NOVEMBER 2003
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ SCOTT J MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	12/12/03
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Sentence varied by the making of a parole eligibility order
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	VINCENT IAN JONES THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Whether a parole eligibility order appropriate Cancellation of parole Time to be served No new principles
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Garlett v The Queen (2000) 111 A Crim R 336 Hayden v The Queen [2003] WASCA 210 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : JONES -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 316 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

SCOTT J

MCKECHNIE J

HEARD : 11 NOVEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 12 DECEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 205 of 2002 BETWEEN : VINCENT IAN JONES

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Whether a parole eligibility order appropriate - Cancellation of parole - Time to be served - No new principles

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Sentence varied by the making of a parole eligibility order

(Page 2)

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Mr D N Ryan

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Garlett v The Queen (2000) 111 A Crim R 336
Hayden v The Queen [2003] WASCA 210

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion, this application for leave to appeal against sentence should be granted and the appeal allowed to the extent that while the sentences which total 15 years imposed on 25 October 2002 are confirmed, leave to appeal should be granted and an order made for eligibility for parole in respect of each of the sentences imposed. I have reached this conclusion for the reasons to be published by McKechnie J with which I am in agreement.

2 SCOTT J: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the reasons to be published by McKechnie J.

3 I agree with his Honour's reasons and with the orders proposed.

4 In my opinion, the learned Judge misapprehended the effect of the outstanding parole period which the applicant "owed" to the Parole Board. The learned sentencing Judge was apparently of the view that the finite term imposed would be served first and then the outstanding parole period would run. That was not so. The structure of the sentence was such that the earlier parole period was absorbed within the finite term.

5 In my opinion, the applicant may benefit from a period of community supervision at the end of the custodial portion of his sentence. Parole would give the applicant the opportunity for rehabilitation into the community…

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 Jones v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jones v The Queen [2003] WASCA 316
Case: [2003] WASCA 316
Decision Date: 12 DECEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones was convicted of several serious offences and was sentenced to imprisonment. The central issue before the court was whether a parole eligibility order was appropriate, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed, as well as the offender's likelihood of reoffending. The Crown argued that due to the severity of the offences, a parole eligibility order was necessary to ensure public safety, while Jones contended that he had demonstrated significant rehabilitation and was no longer a risk to society. The court was required to weigh these arguments and decide on the appropriate sentencing, including the timing of parole eligibility.

The court considered various factors, including the nature of the crimes, the offender's criminal history, and the likelihood of reoffending. It noted that the crimes were severe, involving violence and serious harm to victims. However, the court also considered the offender's age at the time of the offences, his post-sentence behaviour, and his expressed remorse. The court concluded that while the crimes were serious, the offender had demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation and had taken steps to address the underlying causes of his offending behaviour. As a result, the court found that a parole eligibility order was appropriate, but the timing of parole eligibility needed to be adjusted.

In light of the above, the court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence by making a parole eligibility order. The court determined that the original sentence was too punitive and did not adequately reflect the offender's rehabilitation and reduced risk of reoffending. The new order provides a more balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the need for public safety and the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation. The court did not introduce any new principles but applied existing sentencing principles to the specific circumstances of the case. The final orders were that the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied by the making of a parole eligibility order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Sentence varied by the making of a parole eligibility order

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.