KEARNEY -v- RINAUDO [2007] WASC 104
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASC 104 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1119/2006 | 23 APRIL 2007 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 9/05/07 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed New sentence imposed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
ISAAC JOSEPH RINAUDO
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE E CAMPIONE
File No : KH 560 of 2006, KH 1217 of 2006
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Driving offences - Plea of guilty on two charges of driving whilst under suspension - Sentences of imprisonment cumulative - Whether sentence of imprisonment excessive - Totality principle - Held that sentence was excessive - Appeal allowed - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 14, s 39
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49(1), s 49(2)(a)(iii), s 49(3)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6
Result:
Appeal allowed
New sentence imposed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr J I Brash
Respondent : Mr P D Lochore
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid WA
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Anderson v Heath [2005] WASC 253
Anderson v Stilwell [2006] WASC 257
Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6
Findlay v State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 61
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
McLean v The Queen [1999] WASCA 209
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R…
Continue reading Kearney v Rinaudo
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Kearney v Rinaudo [2007] WASC 104
- Case
- [2007] WASC 104
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Kearney v Rinaudo, the appellant was convicted of two separate charges of driving while the licence was suspended. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant pleaded guilty to these charges and was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that it was excessive and should not be cumulative. The respondent, the Crown, argued that the sentence was appropriate and should be upheld. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether it should be cumulative. The court considered the totality principle, which requires that the severity of the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.
The court found that the sentence was excessive and should not be cumulative. The court held that the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence did not warrant such a severe sentence. The court also noted that the appellant had shown remorse and had taken steps to address the underlying issues that led to the offence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. The appeal was therefore allowed, and a new sentence was imposed by the court.
The court found that the sentence was excessive and should not be cumulative. The court held that the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence did not warrant such a severe sentence. The court also noted that the appellant had shown remorse and had taken steps to address the underlying issues that led to the offence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. The appeal was therefore allowed, and a new sentence was imposed by the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
New sentence imposed
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.