MARSHALL -v- SPENT [2000] WASCA 114
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 114 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1219/1999 | 19 APRIL 2000 | |
| Coram: | MILLER J | 1/05/00 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL WARREN MARSHALL RUSSELL SPENT |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal Driving under suspension Whether imprisonment appropriate for second offence Principles to be applied |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974, s 49(1)(a), s 63(1) |
Case References: | Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990001; 13 January 1999 Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998 O'Brien v Richie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123, 17 March 1999 Police v Cadd & Ors (1997) 69 SASR 150 Stewart v Waghorn [1999] WASCA 150 Liddington (1997) 97 A Crim R 399 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : MARSHALL -v- SPENT [2000] WASCA 114 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 19 APRIL 2000 DELIVERED : 1 MAY 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1219 of 1999 BETWEEN : MICHAEL WARREN MARSHALL
- Appellant
AND
RUSSELL SPENT
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal - Driving under suspension - Whether imprisonment appropriate for second offence - Principles to be applied
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974, s 49(1)(a), s 63(1)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R E Lindsay & Mr S Senaradine
Respondent : Ms A C Johnson
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid Commission
Respondent : State Crown Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990001; 13 January 1999
Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998
O'Brien v Richie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123, 17 March 1999
Police v Cadd & Ors (1997) 69 SASR 150
Stewart v Waghorn [1999] WASCA 150
Case(s) also cited:
Liddington (1997) 97 A Crim R 399
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387
(Page 3)
1 MILLER J: The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions at Armadale that on 5 November 1999 at Gosnells he had driven a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of it and with having driven the same motor vehicle without being the holder of the appropriate valid driver's licence and whilst legally disentitled to hold a driver's licence. The offences were preferred under the provisions of s 63(1) and s 49(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1974.
2 The appellant came before Mr T J McIntyre SM in the Court of Petty Sessions at Armadale on 23 November 1999 where he pleaded guilty to both charges. He was represented by counsel who conceded that the appellant had last been before the Court on 7 September 1999 when he faced almost the same combination of offences and was fined a total of $1000 with suspension of…
Continue reading Marshall v Spent
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Marshall v Spent [2000] WASCA 114
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Marshall appealed against his conviction and sentence for driving a motor vehicle while his licence was suspended for a second time. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
Marshall's counsel argued that the punishment imposed, which was imprisonment, was excessive. They submitted that the principles for sentencing for driving under suspension, particularly for a second offence, were not properly applied. Counsel argued that the sentencing judge did not consider the principles as outlined in relevant case law, and that the sentence was unduly harsh. The Crown maintained that the punishment was appropriate and within the sentencing range provided by the law.
The Court of Appeal considered the applicable principles for sentencing in cases of driving under suspension, particularly when it was the second offence. The Court concluded that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant principles and circumstances of the case. The Court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that there was no error in the approach taken by the sentencing judge. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Marshall's counsel argued that the punishment imposed, which was imprisonment, was excessive. They submitted that the principles for sentencing for driving under suspension, particularly for a second offence, were not properly applied. Counsel argued that the sentencing judge did not consider the principles as outlined in relevant case law, and that the sentence was unduly harsh. The Crown maintained that the punishment was appropriate and within the sentencing range provided by the law.
The Court of Appeal considered the applicable principles for sentencing in cases of driving under suspension, particularly when it was the second offence. The Court concluded that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant principles and circumstances of the case. The Court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that there was no error in the approach taken by the sentencing judge. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
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.