LANGDON -v- KELEMETE-LEOLI-McLEAN [2011] WASCA 26
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2011] WASCA 26 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:69/2010 | 20 DECEMBER 2010 | |
| Coram: | PULLIN JA BUSS JA MAZZA J | 14/02/11 | |
| 25 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LEONARD ROBERT LANGDON ROBERT CLEMENT KELEMETE-LEOLI-McLEAN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Assault occasioning bodily harm Whether consequence of grievous bodily harm can be taken into account |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1), s 14(2), s 14(5), s 16(2), s 18, s 31(4)(a) Criminal Code (WA), s 1(1), s 221(1), s 297(1), s 313(1), s 317, s 656 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6(1), s 6(2), s 7(1), s 7(3) |
Case References: | Hladin v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 50; (2005) 156 A Crim R 176 Holden v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 50 Hooper v The Queen [2003] WASCA 179; (2003) 27 WAR 264 Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209 Langdon v Kelemete-Leoli-McLean [2010] WASC 82 Longbottom v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 203; (2008) 38 WAR 396 Lovegrove v The Queen [1961] Tas SR 106 Powell v Tickner [2010] WASCA 224 R v Boney [1986] 1 Qd R 190 R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Harrison (1909) 2 Cr App R 94 R v Newman and Turnbull (1997) 1 VR 146 R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Teremoana (1990) 54 SASR 30 Wiltshire v Mafi [2010] WASCA 111 Zimmerman v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 211 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : LANGDON -v- KELEMETE-LEOLI-McLEAN [2011] WASCA 26 CORAM : PULLIN JA
- BUSS JA
MAZZA J
- Appellant
AND
ROBERT CLEMENT KELEMETE-LEOLI-McLEAN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : McKECHNIE J
Citation : LANGDON -v- KELEMETE-LEOLI-MCLEAN [2010] WASC 82
File No : SJA 1147 of 2009
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Whether consequence of grievous bodily harm can be taken into account
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1), s 14(2), s 14(5), s 16(2), s 18, s 31(4)(a)
Criminal Code (WA), s 1(1), s 221(1), s 297(1), s 313(1), s 317, s 656
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6(1), s 6(2), s 7(1), s 7(3)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr L M Levy SC
Respondent : Ms L Petrusa
Solicitors:
Appellant : David Manera
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Hladin v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 50; (2005) 156 A Crim R 176
Holden v The…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Langdon v Kelemete-Leoli-McLean and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2011] WASCA 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by the respondent, Kelemete-Leoli-McLean, against the sentence imposed by the County Court for an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. The sentencing judge had taken into account the possibility of grievous bodily harm as a consequence of the assault when imposing sentence. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the sentencing judge was correct in doing so.
The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge was entitled to take into account the possibility of grievous bodily harm as a consequence of the assault when imposing sentence. The court noted that the possibility of grievous bodily harm was not an element of the offence, but rather a potential consequence that could be considered in sentencing. The court considered the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act and relevant case law.
The court found that the sentencing judge was entitled to take into account the possibility of grievous bodily harm as a consequence of the assault when imposing sentence. The court noted that the possibility of grievous bodily harm was a relevant consideration in assessing the seriousness of the offence and in determining an appropriate sentence. The court also noted that the sentencing judge had not erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offence or in imposing sentence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in taking into account the possibility of grievous bodily harm as a consequence of the assault when imposing sentence, and that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances. The court also noted that the appeal was unlikely to have a substantial effect on the fairness of the trial or the outcome of the proceedings.
The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge was entitled to take into account the possibility of grievous bodily harm as a consequence of the assault when imposing sentence. The court noted that the possibility of grievous bodily harm was not an element of the offence, but rather a potential consequence that could be considered in sentencing. The court considered the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act and relevant case law.
The court found that the sentencing judge was entitled to take into account the possibility of grievous bodily harm as a consequence of the assault when imposing sentence. The court noted that the possibility of grievous bodily harm was a relevant consideration in assessing the seriousness of the offence and in determining an appropriate sentence. The court also noted that the sentencing judge had not erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offence or in imposing sentence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in taking into account the possibility of grievous bodily harm as a consequence of the assault when imposing sentence, and that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances. The court also noted that the appeal was unlikely to have a substantial effect on the fairness of the trial or the outcome of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.