Lenton v The Queen - [2001] WASCA 392

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: LENTON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 392

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
ANDERSON J
EINFELD AJ

HEARD: 22 OCTOBER 2001

DELIVERED : 6 DECEMBER 2001

FILE NO/S: CCA 86 of 2001

BETWEEN: HEATH ANDREW LENTON
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Large number of offences - Aggregate sentence of 6 years and 10 months - Totality principle - Sentence reflected level of criminality involved - Not set aside as excessive

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr S D Hall
Respondent: Mr P J Urquhart

Solicitors:

Applicant: Michael Tudori
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Larsen v R (1989) 44 A Crim R 121
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Holder & Johnston (1983) 13 A Crim R 375
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999
Yates v R [1985] VR 41

Case(s) also cited:

Ainsworth v R [2001] WASCA 212
Johnston v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960153; 22 March 1996
Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159
Sikaloski v R [2000] WASCA 387

MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion the applicant should be granted leave to appeal, but the appeal dismissed. I have reached that conclusion for the reasons to be published by Einfeld AJ, with which I agree. As his Honour has pointed out, the learned Judge, having stated the sentences he proposed to impose, after making allowance for the guilty pleas and other matters by way of mitigation, said:
"Now, I then must address the totality of these sentences to ensure that they are not crushing, but also to ensure that the punishment reflects the seriousness of your offending."
As Einfeld AJ has concluded, the learned Judge failed to take into account the sentences previously imposed in respect of offences forming part of the same chapter of criminality or offending as those with which his Honour had to sentence the applicant. That was an error of principle. It follows that it fell to this Court to consider whether the total of the sentences previously imposed and those imposed by the learned Judge infringed the totality principle. As Anderson J (with whom Pidgeon and Ipp JJ agreed) said in Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999, the effect of the totality principle is that special considerations arise for a sentencing court dealing with an offender convicted of multiple offences, even where the offender is dealt with by more than one sentencing court: Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517. Anderson J stated the principle in Vlek at 6 as…

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 Lenton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lenton v The Queen [2001] WASCA 392
Case: [2001] WASCA 392
Decision Date: 6 DECEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Lenton, was convicted of a series of offences and sentenced to a total of six years and ten months imprisonment. Mr Lenton appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentence was excessive. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the offending and the principles of sentencing.

The court considered the nature and number of the offences committed, the culpability of the offender, and the principles of sentencing, including the totality principle. The court noted that the appellant's offending was extensive and involved a high degree of criminality. The sentence imposed by the trial judge reflected the seriousness of the offending and was not disproportionate to the level of criminality involved. The court found that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed and did not amount to an error in the application of the sentencing principles.

In conclusion, the court held that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive. The sentence reflected the level of criminality involved in the offending and was in accordance with the principles of sentencing. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The court did not set aside the sentence as excessive, and the original sentence of six years and ten months imprisonment was upheld.

Orders