KAUHANEN -v- R [1999] WASCA 14
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 14 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:133/1998 | 18 FEBRUARY 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ PIDGEON J ANDERSON J | 26/05/99 | |
| 50 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LEO TAPANI KAUHANEN THE QUEEN MICHELLE CLAIRE PERICLES |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Attempted defrauding of the Commonwealth Appeal by male offender against total sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for five false claims for export development grants totalling $1,106,817 Sophisticated interstate scheme difficult to detect Parity and totality Female co-offender given suspended sentence Distinguishing mitigatory features No justifiable sense of grievance Sentence not manifestly excessive Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Crown appeal Attempted defrauding of the Commonwealth Total sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with 14 month pre-release period for male offender Sophisticated interstate scheme difficult to detect General and personal deterrence Principles applicable Sentence not manifestly inadequate Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Crown appeal Attempted defrauding of the Commonwealth Suspended total sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for female offender Sophisticated interstate scheme difficult to detect General and personal deterrence Principles applicable Youth, previous good character, prospects of rehabilitation and offences resulting from influence of dominant male co-offender Judicial clemency Sentences not manifestly inadequate Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 (1998) 72 ALJR 1416, applied Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295, applied R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394, discussed R v Petterson [1984] WAR 329, applied |
Legislation: | Export Markets Development Grants Act 1974 (Cth) s39(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s16A(2)(c), s16B(a) Criminal Code s688, s689 |
Case References: | Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 Clarke v The Queen [1996] 2 VR 520 Dickes (1983) 10 A Crim R 88 Everett & Phillips v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Greenburg (1993) 68 A Crim R 392 Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 Heryadi v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980113; 12 March 1998 Lee Vanit v The Queen (1997) 190 CLR 378 Leeth v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 455 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Malvoso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 at [45]; (1998) 72 ALJR 1416 at 1423-1424 [45] Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Gray [1977] VR 225 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Petterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Ruggiero [1998] SASC 6989 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Ritter v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6380; 5 August 1986 Savvas v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 564 Sheedy v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970120; 26 March 1997 Siganto v The Queen [1998] HCA 74; (1998)… |
Continue reading Kauhanen v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Kauhanen v R [1999] WASCA 14
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Kauhanen v R involved a male offender who appealed against his sentence of three years' imprisonment for making five false claims for export development grants, totalling $1,106,817. The offender had participated in a sophisticated interstate scheme that was difficult to detect. The Crown appealed against the leniency of the sentence. The case also involved a female co-offender who was given a suspended sentence for her involvement in the same scheme. The male offender argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider the principles of parity and totality. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence.
The court considered the legal issues related to sentencing, including the principles of parity, totality, general and personal deterrence, and the mitigatory features of the offenders. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive as it took into account the sophisticated nature of the scheme, the significant amount of money involved, and the offender's role in the scheme. The court also found that the female co-offender's sentence was not manifestly inadequate as it took into account her youth, previous good character, prospects of rehabilitation, and the influence of the dominant male co-offender. The court applied the principles set out in Pearce v The Queen, Postiglione v The Queen, and R v Petterson to determine the appropriate sentences.
The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, and the sentences were upheld. The court found that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences and were appropriate in the circumstances. The court also found that there was no justifiable sense of grievance in the sentences, and that the sentences were not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The case highlights the importance of considering the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence.
The court considered the legal issues related to sentencing, including the principles of parity, totality, general and personal deterrence, and the mitigatory features of the offenders. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive as it took into account the sophisticated nature of the scheme, the significant amount of money involved, and the offender's role in the scheme. The court also found that the female co-offender's sentence was not manifestly inadequate as it took into account her youth, previous good character, prospects of rehabilitation, and the influence of the dominant male co-offender. The court applied the principles set out in Pearce v The Queen, Postiglione v The Queen, and R v Petterson to determine the appropriate sentences.
The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, and the sentences were upheld. The court found that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences and were appropriate in the circumstances. The court also found that there was no justifiable sense of grievance in the sentences, and that the sentences were not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The case highlights the importance of considering the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal and cross-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.