KENNEDY -v- LOVELL [2002] WASCA 226
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 226 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CIV:2012/2002 | 9 AUGUST 2002 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J STEYTLER J | 15/08/02 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Fines totalling $30,000 imposed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE HONOURABLE GEOFFREY ALEXANDER KENNEDY AO QC, THE ROYAL COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY CORRUPT OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY ANY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER MATTERS AVON LOVELL |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Contempt Failure to attend before Royal Commission in response to summons After subsequently attending the Commission refusal to be sworn to give evidence Leaving the Commission and failing to attend thereafter without having been released |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 7 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55 r 2(1) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 3(3), s 6, s 35(1) |
Case References: | Attorney General (NSW) v Whitely (1993) 31 NSWLR 314 C v Registrar, Court of Appeal, unreported; Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW); 19 December 1995 Close (1992) 31 NSWLR 743 Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 Fuller, unreported; Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW); 7 November 1994 GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376; 75 A Crim R 319 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell & Anor, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980397; 16 July 1998 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell & Or, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980397; 16 July 1998 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (1998) 19 WAR 316 Parry (1997) 92 A Crim R 295 Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446 Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Jando (2001) 53 NSWLR 527 R v Aristodemu, unreported; CCA (NSW); 30 June 1994 R v Pearce (1992) 7 WAR 395 Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam [No 2] (1992) 26 NSWLR 309 Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal v Gilby, unreported; Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW); 20 August 1991 Registrar, Court of Criminal Appeal v Craven [No 2] (1995) 120 FLR 464; 80 A Crim R 272 Smith (1991) 25 NSWLR 1 Von Doussa v Owens [No 3] (1982) 31 SASR 116 Wood v Galea (1995) 79 A Crim R 567 Wood v Galea (1996) 84 A Crim R 274 Wood v Galea (No 2), unreported; SCt of NSW; Admin Law Div; No 30049 of 1995 Wood v Staunton [No 5] (1995) 86 A Crim R 183 Young v Registrar, Court of Appeal [No 3] (1993) 32 NSWLR 262 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : KENNEDY -v- LOVELL [2002] WASCA 226 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MURRAY J
STEYTLER J
Continue reading Kennedy v Lovell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Kennedy v Lovell [2002] WASCA 226
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 226
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Kennedy v Lovell, the dispute involved a challenge to the defendant's sentence for contempt of court. The defendant had failed to attend before a Royal Commission in response to a summons. Despite subsequently attending, he refused to be sworn to give evidence. He left the Commission and failed to attend thereafter without having been released. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the defendant's conduct and whether the lower court had adequately considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court and determining whether it was appropriate in the circumstances.
The High Court considered the nature and seriousness of the defendant's contempt, his background, and the need for deterrence. The court held that the lower court had not adequately considered all the relevant factors in determining the sentence. It was also noted that the defendant had not shown any remorse for his actions. The High Court imposed a fine of $30,000, finding that this was an appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the importance of the rule of law and the need to uphold the authority of the courts.
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the defendant's conduct and whether the lower court had adequately considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court and determining whether it was appropriate in the circumstances.
The High Court considered the nature and seriousness of the defendant's contempt, his background, and the need for deterrence. The court held that the lower court had not adequately considered all the relevant factors in determining the sentence. It was also noted that the defendant had not shown any remorse for his actions. The High Court imposed a fine of $30,000, finding that this was an appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the importance of the rule of law and the need to uphold the authority of the courts.
Orders
Orders of the court
Fines totalling $30,000 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.