LEWIS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 9

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 9
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:212/1998	Heard:	9 DECEMBER 1999
Coram:	KENNEDY J WALLWORK J MURRAY J	Delivered:	3/02/00
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	PHILLIP FRANCIS LEWIS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against pecuniary penalty order Relevance of sentence generally to the making of the order Other grounds discussed Turns on own facts.
Legislation:	Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1988 (WA) s 6, s 15
Case References:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Vict) v Nieves [1992] 1 VR 257 R v Allen (1989) 41 A Crim R 51 R v Cornwell (1990) 49 A Crim R 122 R v McDermott (1990) 49 A Crim R 105 R v Nieves (1991) 51 A Crim R 350 R v Peterson [1992] 1 VR 297 R v Rintel (1991) 3 WAR 527 R v Thomas [1991] 2 VR 207 Razzi v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1990) 50 A Crim R 142 Sinanovic v R (1998) 154 ALR 702 Tapper v R (1992) 111 ALR 347 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 DPP v McConnell, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 4466; 12 June 1995 Poole v The Queen [1999] WASCA 46 R v Allen (1989) 41 A Crim R 51 R v Bell (1981) 5 A Crim R 347 R v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32 R v Madigan, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 3467; 7 August 1992

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : LEWIS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 9 CORAM : KENNEDY J

WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

HEARD : 9 DECEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 3 FEBRUARY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 212 of 1998 BETWEEN : PHILLIP FRANCIS LEWIS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against pecuniary penalty order - Relevance of sentence generally to the making of the order - Other grounds discussed - Turns on own facts.

Legislation:

Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1988 (WA) s 6, s 15

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Mr J W M Foulsham

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Director of Public Prosecutions (Vict) v Nieves [1992] 1 VR 257
R v Allen (1989) 41 A Crim R 51
R v Cornwell (1990) 49 A Crim R 122
R v McDermott (1990) 49 A Crim R 105
R v Nieves (1991) 51 A Crim R 350
R v Peterson [1992] 1 VR 297
R v Rintel (1991) 3 WAR 527
R v Thomas [1991] 2 VR 207
Razzi v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1990) 50 A Crim R 142
Sinanovic v R (1998) 154 ALR 702
Tapper v R (1992) 111 ALR 347

Case(s)…

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 Lewis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lewis v The Queen [2000] WASCA 9
Case: [2000] WASCA 9
Decision Date: 3 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lewis v The Queen, the respondent sought to appeal a pecuniary penalty order imposed by a magistrate. The order was made pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) for an offence under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the penalty was disproportionate and that the magistrate had failed to consider relevant factors. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the appeal was valid and whether the penalty order was excessive.

The central legal issues revolved around the criteria for setting a penalty order and the scope of judicial review of such orders. The court needed to consider whether the penalty was proportionate to the offence and whether the magistrate had taken into account all relevant factors. The appellant also argued that the penalty was unjust and had not been properly justified in the context of the overall sentence.

The High Court, in its judgement, examined the statutory framework governing penalty orders and the principles of proportionality and fairness in sentencing. The court found that the penalty imposed was within the bounds of what could be reasonably considered appropriate for the offence committed. It also determined that the magistrate had properly considered the relevant factors and that there was no error in the exercise of discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the penalty order was not found to be unjust or disproportionate.

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.