MESSIHA -v- ROYCE [2004] WASCA 87
| Link to Appeal : |
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 87 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1002/2004 | 10 MARCH 2004 | |
| Coram: | SIMMONDS J | 10/05/04 | |
| 42 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | REDA MESSIHA BRADLEY JAMES ROYCE |
Catchwords: | Appeal against sentence imposed in Court of Petty Sessions Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Whether Magistrate erred in imposing custodial sentence without eligibility for parole |
Legislation: | Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA), s 317(1) Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 23(5)(c) Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 18, s 19 Justices Act 1902 (WA), Pt 8 Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 5(1)(d)(i) Police Act 1892 (WA), s 69 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49(1)(a), s 49(2)(a)(iv), s 49(3b) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6(4), s 8(2), s 8(4), s 15, s 89(4) |
Case References: | AB v R (1999) 198 CLR 111 Abdullah v The Queen [2002] WASCA 57 Aburn v Sears, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 970508; 2 October 1997 Dicks v Farrell [2001] WASCA 124 Dominish v Cavallaro (1980) WAR 205 Garlett v The Queen (2000) 111 A Crim R 336 Holland v R [1999] WASCA 43 Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189 Kitts v The Queen [2000] WASCA 113 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Marker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 282 Miles v R (1997) 17 WAR 518 Oleksiuk v Downing, unreported; SCt of WA (Seaman J); Library No 940189; 8 April 1994 R v Dinsdale (2000) 115 A Crim R 558 R v Hodges [1999] WASCA 278 R v Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 R v Roberts [2003] WASCA 203 R v Sorry (North Eastern Area) Assessment Committee (1948) 1 KB 28 Sheppard v Blakey [2001] WASCA 309 Taylor v The Queen [2004] WASCA 31 Thompson v R (1992) 8 WAR 387 Verschusen v R (1996) 17 WAR 467 Wongawol v R (1998) 101 A Crim R 350 Yanko v The Queen [2004] WASCA 37 Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 Wong v The Queen (2001) 185 ALR 233 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
BRADLEY JAMES ROYCE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram : MR CULLEN SM
File Number : PE36996098/03
Catchwords:
Appeal against sentence imposed in Court of Petty Sessions - Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive - Whether Magistrate erred in imposing custodial sentence without eligibility for parole
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal CodeAct 1913 (WA), s 317(1)
Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 23(5)(c)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 18, s 19
Justices…
Continue reading Messiha v Royce
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Messiha v Royce [2004] WASCA 87
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 87
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Messiha v Royce involved an appeal against the sentence imposed by a magistrate in the Court of Petty Sessions. The defendant, Messiha, was found guilty of a criminal offence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Messiha argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate had erred in imposing a custodial sentence without considering eligibility for parole.
The legal issues that the court needed to determine were whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive, and whether the magistrate erred in imposing a custodial sentence without considering the possibility of parole. The court needed to examine the circumstances of the case and the principles that should be applied when imposing a sentence.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was not manifestly excessive and that the magistrate had not erred in imposing a custodial sentence without considering eligibility for parole. The court held that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offence and that the magistrate had properly considered the relevant factors when imposing the sentence. The court also held that the possibility of parole was not a mandatory consideration when imposing a custodial sentence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the magistrate was upheld. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and that the magistrate had not erred in imposing it. The court held that the appeal was without merit and that the sentence should be upheld.
The legal issues that the court needed to determine were whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive, and whether the magistrate erred in imposing a custodial sentence without considering the possibility of parole. The court needed to examine the circumstances of the case and the principles that should be applied when imposing a sentence.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was not manifestly excessive and that the magistrate had not erred in imposing a custodial sentence without considering eligibility for parole. The court held that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offence and that the magistrate had properly considered the relevant factors when imposing the sentence. The court also held that the possibility of parole was not a mandatory consideration when imposing a custodial sentence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the magistrate was upheld. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and that the magistrate had not erred in imposing it. The court held that the appeal was without merit and that the sentence should be 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.