McCOLL -v- THE QUEEN [1999] WASCA 306
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 306 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:149/1999 | 7 DECEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J WALLWORK J ANDERSON J | 21/12/99 | |
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JULIAN DONALD McCOLL THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Aggravated burglary Assault occasioning bodily harm Home invasion Applicant procured person to assault victim at his home Sentences of 2 years effective imprisonment imposed |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Symonds v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980616; 28 October 1998 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Johnson v R [1999] WASCA 75 Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 Nguyen v R [1999] WASCA 54 Pezzino v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 135 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Halliday, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980143; 3 April 1998 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Ward [1999] WASCA 157 Richards v R [1999] WASCA 105 Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : McCOLL -v- THE QUEEN [1999] WASCA 306 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Aggravated burglary - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Home invasion - Applicant procured person to assault victim at his home - Sentences of 2 years effective imprisonment imposed
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr W B Harris
Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart
Solicitors:
Applicant : David Manera
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Symonds v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980616; 28 October 1998
Case(s) also cited:
Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Johnson v R [1999] WASCA 75
Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66
Nguyen v R [1999] WASCA 54
Pezzino v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 135
R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
R v Halliday, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980143; 3 April 1998
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
R v Ward [1999] WASCA 157
Richards v R [1999] WASCA 105
Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
(Page 3)
Continue reading McColl v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- McColl v The Queen [1999] WASCA 306
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 306
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
McColl v The Queen is a decision from the High Court of Australia concerning the sentencing of an individual convicted of aggravated burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm. The applicant, McColl, had procured another person to assault a victim during a home invasion, resulting in the victim sustaining injuries. The High Court was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court, which was 2 years of effective imprisonment. The primary focus of the case was the adequacy and proportionality of the sentence imposed for the crimes committed.
The legal issues before the court revolved around the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly the need to ensure that sentences are commensurate with the gravity of the offences and serve the purposes of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The court had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the crimes, which included a home invasion and the use of violence. Additionally, the court examined the individual circumstances of the applicant and the need to balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the accused.
The High Court found that the lower court had appropriately considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and acknowledged the gravity of the crimes committed. However, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and thus the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The decision underscored the need for courts to carefully weigh the circumstances of each case and ensure that sentences are fair and balanced.
The final order of the court was to refuse the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court's decision highlights the importance of proportionality in criminal sentencing and the need for courts to carefully consider the gravity of the offences and the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.
The legal issues before the court revolved around the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly the need to ensure that sentences are commensurate with the gravity of the offences and serve the purposes of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The court had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the crimes, which included a home invasion and the use of violence. Additionally, the court examined the individual circumstances of the applicant and the need to balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the accused.
The High Court found that the lower court had appropriately considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and acknowledged the gravity of the crimes committed. However, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and thus the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The decision underscored the need for courts to carefully weigh the circumstances of each case and ensure that sentences are fair and balanced.
The final order of the court was to refuse the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court's decision highlights the importance of proportionality in criminal sentencing and the need for courts to carefully consider the gravity of the offences and the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
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.