Kerr v Cowie

Case [2006] WASC 193


KERR -v- COWIE [2006] WASC 193



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2006] WASC 193
Case No:SJA:1033/20068 AUGUST 2006
Coram:MARTIN CJ8/08/06
9Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
Sentence imposed in relation to aggravated burglary quashed and substituted
with a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment
Sentence imposed in relation to driving under disqualification quashed and
substituted with a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively
with the other sentence
The substituted cumulative sentences to take effect as if imposed by the
Magistrate with eligibility for parole
Continuation of disqualification for holding a motor vehicle licence
B
PDF Version
Parties:JUSTIN ROBERT JOHN KERR
RUSSELL MARK COWIE

Catchwords:

Appeal
Appeal against sentence of 14 months' imprisonment for aggravated burglary
Appeal against sentence of 7  months' imprisonment for driving without a motor vehicle licence and whilst the licence was under suspension
Cumulative sentences
Whether the Magistrate took the plea of guilty into account as a mitigating factor
Requirement to recognise the mitigatory effect of a plea of guilty
Whether the principle of parity should apply where appellant's co­offender was successful in her appeal against sentence

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8

Case References:

Anderson v Heath and Anor [2005] WASC 253
Mason v Morrison [2004] WASCA 181

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Cardile v The Queen [2003] WASCA 72
Dickman v Turton & Anor [2000] WASCA 1
"H" v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 53
Hamon v Iriks (1991) 13 MVR 388
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254
Williams v Franzinelli [2001] WASCA 241

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
CITATION : KERR -v- COWIE [2006] WASC 193 CORAM : MARTIN CJ HEARD : 8 AUGUST 2006 DELIVERED : 8 AUGUST 2006 FILE NO/S : SJA 1033 of 2006 BETWEEN : JUSTIN ROBERT JOHN KERR
    Appellant

    AND

    RUSSELL MARK COWIE
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No : SJA 1033 of 2006

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR K FISHER SM

File No : BU 2135 of 2004


Catchwords:

Appeal - Appeal against sentence of 14 months' imprisonment for aggravated burglary - Appeal against sentence of 7 months' imprisonment for driving without a motor vehicle licence and whilst the licence was under suspension - Cumulative sentences - Whether the Magistrate took the plea of guilty into account as a mitigating factor - Requirement to recognise the mitigatory effect



(Page 2)

of a plea of guilty - Whether the principle of parity should apply where appellant's co­offender was successful in her appeal against sentence

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8

Result:

Appeal allowed


Sentence imposed in relation to aggravated burglary quashed and substituted with a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment
Sentence imposed in relation to driving under disqualification quashed…

Continue reading Kerr v Cowie

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kerr v Cowie [2006] WASC 193
Case
[2006] WASC 193
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Justin Robert John Kerr, the appellant, brought an appeal against sentences imposed by the Magistrate in Bunbury. Kerr appealed the sentences for aggravated burglary and for driving without a motor vehicle licence while the licence was under suspension. The Court heard the appeal on 8 August 2006, and Martin CJ delivered the judgment on the same day. The central legal issues were whether the Magistrate took the plea of guilty into account as a mitigating factor and whether the principle of parity should apply given that the appellant's co-offender successfully appealed against her sentence.

Martin CJ observed that the Magistrate failed to credit the appellant's plea of guilty as a mitigating factor, contrary to s 8 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA). This failure to recognise the mitigatory effect of the plea of guilty was an error that vitiated the sentencing process. The court determined that the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were therefore inappropriate and required re-sentencing. The court further noted that while the appellant's co-offender's circumstances influenced her sentence, these were not applicable to Kerr's case due to his extensive criminal history. As such, the court found it appropriate to impose a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for the aggravated burglary, reduced from the original 14 months due to the mitigating effect of the plea of guilty. For the driving offence, the court imposed a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with the sentence for aggravated burglary. Both sentences were to take effect as if imposed by the Magistrate, with eligibility for parole.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentences, and imposed new sentences for the offences in question, ensuring they reflected the mitigating effect of the plea of guilty and aligned with the sentencing principles under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.