LYNCH -v- BOWERS & ANOR [2002] WASCA 168

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 168
Case No:	SJA:1026/2002	Heard:	4 JUNE 2002
Coram:	WHITE AUJ	Delivered:	24/06/02
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	COLIN JOHN LYNCH MICHAEL GEOFFREY BOWERS SIMON DAVID HARRISON
Catchwords:	Appeal against a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed on each of 10 counts of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, the sentences to be concurrent, and of 6 months' imprisonment on one count of having in possession a Honda motor cycle reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, such sentence to be cumulative on the sentences for receiving The offences of receiving having been committed on three separate occasions Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive in the circumstances Whether the fact that the appellant acquired the goods in question for his own use and not for resale was significant
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Burns (1994) 71 A Crim R 450 Dinsdale v R [2000] 175 ALR 315 Liu (1989) 40 A Crim R 468 Quinn v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930709; 10 December 1993 R v Ligginton (1997) 18 WAR 394 Verschuren v R; unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960618; 31 October 1996 Grimshaw v R [2001] WASCA 427 Hodges v Hagan [2001] WASCA 41 Lowndes v R (1999) 173 ALR 483 O'Gorman v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980744; 18 December 1998 Vickers v Bailey [2000] WASCA 136

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : LYNCH -v- BOWERS & ANOR [2002] WASCA 168 CORAM : WHITE AUJ HEARD : 4 JUNE 2002 DELIVERED : 24 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1026 of 2002 BETWEEN : COLIN JOHN LYNCH

Appellant

AND

MICHAEL GEOFFREY BOWERS

First Respondent

SIMON DAVID HARRISON

Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal against a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed on each of 10 counts of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, the sentences to be concurrent, and of 6 months' imprisonment on one count of having in possession a Honda motor cycle reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, such sentence to be cumulative on the sentences for receiving - The offences of receiving having been committed on three separate occasions - Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive in the circumstances - Whether the fact that the appellant acquired the goods in question for his own use and not for resale was significant

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D D Barker

First Respondent : Mr P Dixon

Second Respondent : Mr P Dixon

Solicitors:

Appellant : Director of Legal Aid

First Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Burns (1994) 71 A Crim R 450
Dinsdale v R [2000] 175 ALR 315
Liu…

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 Lynch v Bowers

Details

AGLC: Lynch v Bowers [2002] WASCA 168
Case: [2002] WASCA 168
Decision Date: 24 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lynch v Bowers, the appellant, Lynch, appealed against the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed on each of 10 counts of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, the sentences to be concurrent, and of 6 months' imprisonment on one count of having in possession a Honda motor cycle reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, such sentence to be cumulative on the sentences for receiving. The offences of receiving having been committed on three separate occasions. Lynch argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive in the circumstances and that the fact that he acquired the goods in question for his own use and not for resale was significant.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether the fact that the appellant acquired the goods in question for his own use and not for resale was significant. The court examined the circumstances of the offences, including the value of the stolen property and the appellant's previous criminal history. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances and the impact of the sentences on him and his family.

The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The court noted that the appellant had a previous criminal history and that the stolen property was of significant value. The court also found that the fact that the appellant acquired the goods in question for his own use and not for resale was not significant in determining the appropriate sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed. The original sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed on each of 10 counts of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, the sentences to be concurrent, and of 6 months' imprisonment on one count of having in possession a Honda motor cycle reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, such sentence to be cumulative on the sentences for receiving, was upheld.

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.