MAIN -v- LAPSLEY [2008] WASC 129

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2008] WASC 129
Case No:	SJA:1027/2008	Heard:	24 JUNE 2008
Coram:	JOHNSON J	Delivered:	4/07/08
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DEKE AARON MAIN STUART DAVID GLYDE LAPSLEY
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Duty of lower courts to follow orders of superior courts Second sentence quashed Twice sentenced for same offence
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 11 Criminal Code (WA) s 17
Case References:	Main v Volpi [2005] WASC 76

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : MAIN -v- LAPSLEY [2008] WASC 129 CORAM : JOHNSON J HEARD : 24 JUNE 2008 DELIVERED : 4 JULY 2008 FILE NO/S : SJA 1027 of 2008 BETWEEN : DEKE AARON MAIN

Appellant

AND

STUART DAVID GLYDE LAPSLEY

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR F CULLEN SM

File No : PE 27457 of 2003, PE 29872 of 2003, PE 29873 of 2003

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Duty of lower courts to follow orders of superior courts - Second sentence quashed - Twice sentenced for same offence

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 11

Criminal Code (WA) s 17

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms K J Farley

Respondent : Ms F B Seaward

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Main v Volpi [2005] WASC 76

(Page 3)

1 JOHNSON J: This appeal is brought to correct an error made by a sentencing magistrate on 29 October 2004 with respect of the sentence for two offences. It is also brought to correct an omission made on 8 April 2005 when a judge of this court corrected the error in relation to one of the offences but apparently was not made aware that there was a further offence affected by the same error.

2 The history of the matter began on 30 March 2004 when the appellant was found guilty of stealing and pleaded guilty to giving a false name to police (false name offence) before a magistrate in Perth Magistrates Court. He was remanded to 26 May 2004 for sentencing. On that date the appellant appeared before the deputy chief magistrate because the magistrate who had initially dealt with the charges was unwell. The deputy chief magistrate noted that the two charges breached a suspended sentence imposed by the District Court and both charges were referred to the District Court to be dealt with in accordance with s 78 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).

3 On 8 October 2004 the other magistrate brought the two charges on before him. A charge of breaching bail and a receiving charge was also brought on before him, however the receiving charge was remanded to a hearing in December. On 8 October 2004 the magistrate expressed the view that 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 Main v Lapsley

Details

AGLC: Main v Lapsley [2008] WASC 129
Case: [2008] WASC 129
Decision Date: 4 JULY 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Main v Lapsley, the defendant was convicted and sentenced by the Court of Petty Sessions for a particular offence. The defendant had already been sentenced for the same offence in a higher court, leading to an argument that he had been sentenced twice for the same act, which was against legal principles. The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court should not have imposed a second sentence when he had already been sentenced by a superior court.

The court was required to determine whether the lower court had the authority to impose a second sentence on the defendant after he had already been sentenced by a superior court for the same offence. This raised issues concerning the hierarchy of courts in Australia and the principle that an individual should not be punished twice for the same offence, known as the principle of double jeopardy.

The court found that the lower court had overstepped its authority by imposing a second sentence on the defendant. It was held that once a person has been sentenced by a superior court for a particular offence, a lower court cannot impose an additional sentence for the same act. The principle of double jeopardy was upheld, and the court determined that the second sentence imposed by the Court of Petty Sessions was invalid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the Court of Petty Sessions was quashed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal should be allowed and the sentence imposed by the Court of Petty Sessions on complaint number PE 29872 be quashed.

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.