LOGAN -v- KUSER [2008] WASC 65
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 65 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1005/2008 | 15 APRIL 2008 | |
| Coram: | JOHNSON J | 29/04/08 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Total sentence of 7 months conditionally suspended imprisonment substituted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
TERRENCE RUSSELL KUSER
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE T J McINTYRE
File No : MH 5459 of 2007, MH 5460 of 2007, MH 5461 of 2007
Catchwords:
Immediate or suspended imprisonment - 'One transaction rule' - Deduction for plea of guilty - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Totality principle
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Total sentence of 7 months conditionally suspended imprisonment substituted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr S B Watters
Respondent : Ms E L Camins
Solicitors:
Appellant : M J Ayoub & Co
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Aconi v The Queen [2001] WASCA 211
Anderson v Heath [2005] WASC 253
Bell v Wesley (2007) 49 WVR 134
Boyle v The Queen (1987) 34 A Crim R 202
Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6; (2002) 209 CLR 339
Damiani v The State of Western Australia (2006) 165 A Crim R…
Continue reading Logan v Kuser
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65
- Case
- [2008] WASC 65
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal against sentence was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant was convicted of six counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, one count of stealing, one count of possessing property obtained by crime, and one count of possession of a knife in a public place. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the respondent argued that the sentence was appropriate. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the totality principle was correctly applied.
The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty to all charges and was entitled to a discount. The court found that the sentence was imposed on the basis of the 'one transaction rule', which was not appropriate in this case. The court found that the sentence should have been imposed on the basis of the totality principle, which requires that the total sentence imposed should be proportionate to the total offending. The court found that the sentence was not proportionate to the total offending, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The court substituted the sentence of 7 months imprisonment with a sentence of 7 months imprisonment conditionally suspended for 2 years. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was substituted. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the totality principle was not correctly applied. The court found that the sentence was not proportionate to the total offending, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty to all charges and was entitled to a discount. The court found that the sentence was imposed on the basis of the 'one transaction rule', which was not appropriate in this case. The court found that the sentence should have been imposed on the basis of the totality principle, which requires that the total sentence imposed should be proportionate to the total offending. The court found that the sentence was not proportionate to the total offending, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The court substituted the sentence of 7 months imprisonment with a sentence of 7 months imprisonment conditionally suspended for 2 years. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was substituted. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the totality principle was not correctly applied. The court found that the sentence was not proportionate to the total offending, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Total sentence of 7 months conditionally suspended imprisonment substituted
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.