Criminal law - Sentencing - Discount for prompt plea of guilty - Discount insufficient - Sentence of 10 years reduced to 9 years
Criminal law - Sentencing - Victim impact statement - Statement of material facts different from facts in victim impact statement - Victim impact statement not challenged - Sentencing Judge allowed to use victim impact statement when sentencing
Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998
Yarran v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960556; 4 April 1996
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 10 July 2000, the applicant pleaded guilty in this Court to five offences comprising three counts of stealing a motor vehicle, one count of aggravated burglary and one count of armed robbery in company. All of these offences were committed in a four‑day period between 20 and 23 April 2000 in the suburbs of Thornlie, Karrinyup, Marmion and Como. At the time of the offences, the applicant was on parole, having been released to parole a little more than a month previously after serving the custodial part of an aggregate sentence of 2‑1/2 years for five aggravated burglary offences. At the time of sentence, he was of the age of about 22. His antecedent report reveals that he had some 257 prior convictions. A great many of these are driving offences, but there are also numerous unauthorised use of motor vehicle, stealing, stealing motor vehicle, burglary, break and enter and two armed robberies. He commenced offending in 1989 when he was of the age of about 12.
The maximum penalty for the offences charged on this indictment were:
1.Steal…
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 Little v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87
Case
[2001] WASCA 87
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Little v The Queen involved the applicant, Little, who was sentenced to a total of 10 years in prison for a series of offences including theft of motor vehicles, aggravated burglary, and armed robbery committed over a four-day period. The sentencing judge recognised Little's early guilty plea by reducing the sentence for the more serious offences by one year, bringing the total sentence to 10 years, which was backdated to the date of Little's arrest. The applicant contested the adequacy of the discount for his early guilty plea and the overall sentence length, arguing that a starting point of 12 years was too high. The Director of Public Prosecutions defended the sentence, noting the seriousness and prevalence of the crimes committed.
The primary legal issues in this case centred on the appropriateness of the discount given to Little for his early guilty plea and the overall length of the sentence imposed. The court had to consider whether the discount was sufficient in light of the serious nature of the crimes and the applicant's extensive criminal history. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the sentence of 10 years was appropriate, taking into account the maximum penalties prescribed by law and the objective criminality involved in the offences.
In evaluating these issues, the court found that the discount for the early guilty plea, which reduced the sentences on counts 4 and 5 by one year each, was not excessive given the severity of the crimes. The court also considered that a starting point of 12 years was not manifestly excessive for the series of offences. The court highlighted the high-speed police chase and destruction of a vehicle, as well as the domestic burglary and significant property theft. Furthermore, the court noted that the victim impact statement was not challenged and allowed the sentencing judge to use it in determining the sentence. Consequently, the court upheld the sentence of 10 years, with the reduced sentences for counts 4 and 5.
The court confirmed the sentence of 10 years, with the sentences for counts 1, 2, and 3 to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the sentence for count 5. The sentence for count 4 was to be served cumulatively on the sentence for count 5. The court also upheld the decision not to make an order for eligibility for parole.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
WALLWORK J
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 10 July 2000, the applicant pleaded guilty in this Court to five offences comprising three counts of stealing a motor vehicle, one count of aggravated burglary and one count of armed robbery in company. All of these offences were committed in a four‑day period between 20 and 23 April 2000 in the suburbs of Thornlie, Karrinyup, Marmion and Como. At the time of the offences, the applicant was on parole, having been released to parole a little more than a month previously after serving the custodial part of an aggregate sentence of 2‑1/2 years for five aggravated burglary offences. At the time of sentence, he was of the age of about 22. His antecedent report reveals that he had some 257 prior convictions. A great many of these are driving offences, but there are also numerous unauthorised use of motor vehicle, stealing, stealing motor vehicle, burglary, break and enter and two armed robberies. He commenced offending in 1989 when he was of the age of about 12. The maximum penalty for the offences charged on this indictment were:1.Steal motor vehicle - 7 years (or 8 years if the vehicle is then driven by the offender recklessly or in a dangerous manner).2.Aggravated burglary - 20 years.3.Armed robbery in company - life. The learned sentencing Judge passed the following sentences:Count 1:Stealing motor vehicle - 1 yearCount 2:Stealing motor vehicle - 1 yearCount 3:Aggravated burglary - 2 yearsCount 4:Stealing motor vehicle - 3 yearsCount 5:Armed robbery - 7 years He directed that the sentences in respect to counts 1, 2 and 3 be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the sentence imposed with respect to count 5. He directed that the sentence imposed with respect to count 4 be served cumulatively on the count 5 sentence. In that way he arrived at an aggregate sentence of 10 years which he backdated to 25 June 2000. He declined to make an order for eligibility for parole. In passing these sentences his Honour expressly recognised the need to reward the applicant for his fast track plea of guilty. This he did by reducing the sentences he would otherwise have imposed on counts 4 and 5 each by 1 year. In other words, had it not been for the fast track plea of guilty, the sentence in respect to count 4 would have been four years and the sentence in respect to count 5 would have been 8 years, giving an aggregate of 12 years. On behalf of the applicant, it was submitted that this was too high a starting‑point. Having regard to the maximum penalties prescribed by parliament for these offences, and having regard to the objective criminality involved in this crime spree, it cannot be said that a starting‑point of 12 years was manifestly excessive for all five offences. As the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Cock QC, pointed out the offences in question, all of them, are serious and prevalent. Two of the three vehicles which were stolen were damaged. The vehicle the subject of count 4, valued at about $42,000, was involved in a high‑speed pursuit with police and was crashed and destroyed. The burglary the subject of count 3 was a domestic burglary committed in company. $3,374 worth of property was stolen.