Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Effect of setting aside convictions on some counts - Discount for plea - Totality - Previous character - Likelihood of reoffending - Age and state of health - General deterrence - Manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Crimes Act (Vic), s 569(1)

Criminal Code (WA), s 183, s 693(1)

Sentencing Act 1995, s 8(2), s 82(2)

Result:

Application to extend time to appeal against convictions on counts 1, 4 and 6 allowed
Appeal allowed
Convictions and sentences on counts 1, 4 and 6 quashed
Leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal against sentence dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr O P Holdenson QC & Ms B J Lonsdale
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: Dwyer Durack
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA WA; 960059C
Johnston v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA (Anderson J), 22 March 1996
Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Edirimanasingham [1961] AC 454
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Ryan v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 1
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
Trescuri v The Queen [1999] WASCA 172
Wagenaar v The Queen [2000] WASCA 325

Case(s) also cited:

De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315
DPP v Grabovac [1998] 1 VR 664
Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383
Jarvis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930391; 14 June 1993
R v Atholwood (1999) 109 A Crim R 465
R v Carmody (1998) 100 A Crim R 41
R v Evans, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920616; 24 November 1992
R v Lomax [1998] 1 VR 551
R v Miceli [1998] 4 VR 588
R v Ward [1999] WASCA 157
R v Wozencroft, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6606; 25 February 1987
RHMcL v The Queen (2000) 174 ALR 1
Shaw v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 343
Wagenaar v The Queen [2000] WASCA 325

ANDERSON J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Stein AJ with which I am in entire agreement. There is nothing I wish to add.
SCOTT J: In this matter, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Stein AJ.
I agree both with the reasons of his Honour and the conclusions that he reaches.
The…

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 Longley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Longley v The Queen [2001] WASCA 71
Case: [2001] WASCA 71
Decision Date: 16 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Longley v The Queen, the appellant, Longley, was convicted on multiple counts of criminal charges, including drug supply and possession. Longley appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had failed to properly consider certain mitigating factors. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence and determining whether it was appropriate. The court needed to consider the effect of setting aside convictions on some counts, the discount for a plea of guilty, the principle of totality, the appellant’s previous good character, the likelihood of reoffending, the appellant's age and health, and the need for general deterrence.

The court began by examining the effect of setting aside some convictions on the sentence. It noted that the trial judge had considered the impact of these convictions on the overall sentence. Regarding the discount for a plea of guilty, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered this factor. The court also reviewed the principle of totality, which requires the total punishment to be proportionate to the overall criminality. The court determined that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the crimes committed. The appellant’s previous good character and the likelihood of reoffending were also considered, along with his age and health. The court concluded that these factors did not warrant a reduction in sentence. Finally, the court assessed the need for general deterrence and determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The High Court upheld the sentence, finding that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors. The court found that the sentence was proportionate and not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not order any specific changes to the sentence but affirmed the original sentence as appropriate.

Orders