Criminal law Application for leave to appeal Sentence Two offences of stealing by removing fossilised footprints from natural site Concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment Whether excessive Whether suspended terms appropriate
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : LATHAM -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 338 CORAM : WALLWORK J
PARKER J McKECHNIE J
HEARD : 15 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 8 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 41 of 2000 BETWEEN : MICHAEL CHARLES LATHAM
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal - Sentence - Two offences of stealing by removing fossilised footprints from natural site - Concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment - Whether excessive - Whether suspended terms appropriate
1 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Parker J and to the order proposed by his Honour.
2 PARKER J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on the applicant in the District Court sitting at Broome on 22 February 2000. The applicant, who had been indicted with another person, pleaded guilty to two of three counts alleged against him. The crown accepted these pleas in satisfaction of the indictment. The applicant pleaded guilty to…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Latham v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338
Case
[2000] WASCA 338
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Latham and his co-offenders, appealed against their sentences for two counts of stealing by removing fossilised footprints from a natural site. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were excessive or inappropriate. The applicants argued that the concurrent terms of two years' imprisonment were too harsh and that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate. The court was required to determine whether the sentences were manifestly excessive or whether there was an error in the consideration of the principles of sentencing.
The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the character of the applicants, and the principles of sentencing, including deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the applicants had committed serious offences by removing valuable fossilised footprints from a natural site, which had cultural and scientific significance. The court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the sentences were inappropriate. The court also found that the applicants had not shown that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate, as the offences were serious and the applicants had not demonstrated remorse or rehabilitation. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
The court's reasoning was based on the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court held that the sentences imposed were appropriate and did not constitute a manifest excess of power. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate, as the offences were serious and the applicants had not shown remorse or rehabilitation. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.