KING -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 198
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 198 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:158/2000 | 16 MAY 2001 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J STEYTLER J WHEELER J | 29/06/01 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Appeal against sentence dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RODNEY NATHAN KING THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Appeals Appeal against sentence aggravated burglary Whether manifestly excessive Appeals Appeal against sentence Parole Appeals Appeal against sentence Backdating of sentences Proper construction of s 87 of Sentencing Act 1995 Criminal law Burden of proof Issue of consent as element of two offences on indictment Failure of trial Judge to direct about two different burdens Misdirection relating to element of offence Whether proviso to s 689(1) Criminal Code applies Criminal law Particular offences s 62 Restraining Orders Act |
Legislation: | Criminal Code Act 1913, s 689(1) Interpretation Act 1984, s 10(b), s 18 Restraining Orders Act 1997, s 62 Sentencing Act 1995, s 87 |
Case References: | Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297 Krakouer v R [1998] HCA 43 R v Jones, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 970210; 30 April 1997 R v Lambley (1989) 40 A Crim R 430 Ratcliff v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980651; 3 November 1998 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 R v Glennon (1994) 179 CLR 1 Wilde v The Queen (1987) 164 CLR 373 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KING -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 198 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- STEYTLER J
WHEELER J
- CCA 159 of 2000
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeals - Appeal against sentence aggravated burglary - Whether manifestly excessive
Appeals - Appeal against sentence - Parole
Appeals - Appeal against sentence - Backdating of sentences - Proper construction of s 87 of Sentencing Act 1995
Criminal law - Burden of proof - Issue of consent as element of two offences on indictment - Failure of trial Judge to direct about two different burdens - Misdirection relating to element of offence - Whether proviso to s 689(1) Criminal Code applies
(Page 2)
Criminal law - Particular offences - s 62 - Restraining Orders Act
Legislation:
Criminal Code Act 1913, s 689(1)
Interpretation Act 1984, s 10(b), s 18
Restraining Orders Act 1997, s 62
Sentencing Act 1995, s 87
Result:
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Appeal against sentence dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr L M Levy
Respondent : Ms J A Girdham
Solicitors:
Applicant : Laurie Levy
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation…
Continue reading King v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- King v The Queen [2001] WASCA 198
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 198
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Mr King, appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal arose from Mr King's conviction for aggravated burglary under section 419 of the Criminal Code and for stalking under section 348 of the Criminal Code. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that the trial judge misdirected himself in relation to the burden of proof for the two offences and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury regarding the burden of proof for the two offences and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant also argued that the proviso to section 689(1) of the Criminal Code applied to the sentence, which would have allowed for the backdating of the sentence. The appellant submitted that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the principles of parity and proportionality when imposing the sentence.
The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the burden of proof. The court held that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the two different burdens of proof required for the two offences. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the proviso to section 689(1) of the Criminal Code did not apply to the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the principles of parity and proportionality when imposing the sentence.
The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge were upheld.
The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury regarding the burden of proof for the two offences and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant also argued that the proviso to section 689(1) of the Criminal Code applied to the sentence, which would have allowed for the backdating of the sentence. The appellant submitted that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the principles of parity and proportionality when imposing the sentence.
The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the burden of proof. The court held that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the two different burdens of proof required for the two offences. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the proviso to section 689(1) of the Criminal Code did not apply to the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the principles of parity and proportionality when imposing the sentence.
The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Appeal against sentence 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.