ANDERSON -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2007] WASCA 25

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 25
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:83/2006	Heard:	24 OCTOBER 2006
Coram:	WHEELER JA McLURE JA BUSS JA	Delivered:	4/02/07
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed Leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL WAYNE ANDERSON THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Very many charges of fraud Late guilty plea Offences committed while on bail
Legislation:	Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA)
Case References:	Anderson v The Queen (1996) 18 WAR 244 Chivers v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 97 R v Quirey [2001] QCA 64 R v Sivov [2000] VSCA 7 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : ANDERSON -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2007] WASCA 25 CORAM : WHEELER JA

McLURE JA

BUSS JA

HEARD : 24 OCTOBER 2006 DELIVERED : 5 FEBRUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : CACR 83 of 2006 BETWEEN : MICHAEL WAYNE ANDERSON

Appellant

AND

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : SLEIGHT DCJ

File No : IND 689 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Very many charges of fraud - Late guilty plea - Offences committed while on bail

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D R Love

Respondent : Mr A L Troy

Solicitors:

Appellant : Dean R Love

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Anderson v The Queen (1996) 18 WAR 244
Chivers v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 97
R v Quirey [2001] QCA 64
R v Sivov [2000] VSCA 7

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER JA: This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty in relation to all matters. The plea in respect of some of those matters was entered on 6 February 2006, and in relation to others on 29 March 2006. In total, they were one count of conspiracy to commit fraud, 54 charges of fraud (35 being counts on an indictment and 19 arising on a s 32 notice), one count of forging and one count of uttering.

2 Those charges arose in the following way. They involved the appellant and three co-offenders named Marcel, Archer and Murdoch. It appears that the source of the idea, the knowledge and expertise by which the frauds could be executed, and the supplier of various fabricated documents, was Marcel. The learned sentencing Judge accepted that Marcel was the mastermind, although he took the view that the appellant was a principal in the planned conspiracy.

3 So far as the appellant was concerned, it seems that the scheme at the time he entered into…

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 Judgment suppressed

Details

AGLC: Judgment suppressed [2007] WASCA 25
Case: [2007] WASCA 25
Decision Date: 5 FEBRUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an individual who has been found guilty of numerous charges of fraud. The appellant was originally granted bail but continued to commit offences while out on bail. The matter was brought before the court for sentencing. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the late guilty plea, the number of charges, and the fact that the offences were committed while the appellant was on bail.

The legal issues before the court included whether the late guilty plea should be taken into account in sentencing, the cumulative effect of the numerous charges, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences while on bail. The court had to balance these factors to determine an appropriate sentence.

The court considered the appellant's culpability, the seriousness of the offences, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It found that the appellant's late guilty plea should be taken into account but did not result in a significant reduction in sentence. The court also emphasised the need to address the cumulative effect of the numerous charges. Ultimately, the court determined that the appellant's conduct warranted a substantial sentence. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court decided on a sentence that it deemed appropriate.

The court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. This decision confirms the original sentencing decision and prevents further appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Leave to appeal 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.