MICHAEL -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 4
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 4 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:23/2003 | 1 DECEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J MCLURE J WALLWORK AJ | 22/01/04 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Sentence reduced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ROSE ANNE MICHAEL THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Whether sentence manifestly excessive Whether objectives of sentencing achieved |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61 Hodder v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 264 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Magee v R (1980) WAR 117 Nguyen v The Queen (2001) 160 FLR 284 R v Stewart (1994) 72 A Crim R 17 S v The Queen [2003] WASCA 30 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MICHAEL -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 4 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J
- MCLURE J
WALLWORK AJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Whether objectives of sentencing achieved
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal allowed
Sentence reduced
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr C L J Miocevich
Respondent : Mr D Dempster
Solicitors:
Applicant : Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61
Hodder v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 264
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Magee v The Queen (1980) WAR 117
Nguyen v The Queen (2001) 160 FLR 284
R v Stewart (1994) 72 A Crim R 17
S v The Queen [2003] WASCA 30
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 TEMPLEMAN J: In the District Court at Perth on 20 January 2003, Rose Anne Michael, the applicant, was convicted on her own plea of nine counts of aggravated burglary, seven counts of burglary and one count of stealing a motor vehicle.
2 The applicant was sentenced on 18 February 2003 to terms of imprisonment amounting to 8 years and 2 months. The sentence was backdated to 20 January 2003 and the applicant was made eligible for parole.
3 The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the ground that the learned sentencing Judge:
"Imposed the (sic a) sentence that was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, taking into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the commission of the offence, a pre-sentence report provided, the crushing nature of the sentence imposed, and all other antecedents personal to the applicant."
4 The 17 offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty were committed between 27 June and 8 October 2002. The nine offences of aggravated burglary were committed by the applicant and a co-offender, who…
Continue reading Michael v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Michael v The Queen [2004] WASCA 4
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Michael, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Michael appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and did not appropriately balance the objectives of sentencing. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal and assessed whether the original sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed and whether it effectively achieved the aims of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether it appropriately balanced the objectives of sentencing. The court examined the severity of the sentence in relation to the nature of the offence and the principles of proportionality and fairness in sentencing. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence adequately served the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation as outlined in the sentencing laws.
In its judgment, the court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offence and the established principles of sentencing. The court determined that the sentence did not appropriately balance the objectives of sentencing, particularly in relation to proportionality and fairness. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to a more appropriate level, ensuring that it aligned with the principles of sentencing and adequately served the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether it appropriately balanced the objectives of sentencing. The court examined the severity of the sentence in relation to the nature of the offence and the principles of proportionality and fairness in sentencing. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence adequately served the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation as outlined in the sentencing laws.
In its judgment, the court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offence and the established principles of sentencing. The court determined that the sentence did not appropriately balance the objectives of sentencing, particularly in relation to proportionality and fairness. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to a more appropriate level, ensuring that it aligned with the principles of sentencing and adequately served the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Sentence reduced
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.