MITCHELL -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 25

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 25
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:149/2002	Heard:	4 NOVEMBER 2002
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J WHEELER J MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	4/03/03
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DIANE CLARE MITCHELL THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Good character, grief and depression mitigating factors Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	R v Lauritson (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 Dinsdale v The Queen (1999) 202 CLR 321 Grubb v The Queen [2002] WASCA 158 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 R v Schneider-Markham, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930561; 6 October 1993 R v Western [2001] WASCA 194 Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MITCHELL -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 25 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J

WHEELER J

MCKECHNIE J

HEARD : 4 NOVEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 4 MARCH 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 149 of 2002 BETWEEN : DIANE CLARE MITCHELL

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Good character, grief and depression mitigating factors - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms G A Archer

Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

Applicant : Legal Aid of Western Australia

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

R v Lauritson (2000) 114 A Crim R 333

Case(s) also cited:

Dinsdale v The Queen (1999) 202 CLR 321
Grubb v The Queen [2002] WASCA 158
Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338
R v Schneider-Markham, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930561; 6 October 1993
R v Western [2001] WASCA 194
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108

(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: There were three grounds on which the applications for leave to appeal against sentence were based. They were:

"1. The learned Judge erred in finding that a connection between the offending and the applicant's mental disorder was not more than possible.

2. The learned Judge erred in imposing an immediate term of imprisonment.

Particulars

(a) The learned Judge did not expressly consider suspending the sentence.

(b) The learned Judge placed too much weight on the view of the community.

(c) The learned Judge placed insufficient weight on the mitigating factors, in particular, the Applicant's mental state at the time of the offences.

3. The learned Judge erred in imposing the sentences in respect of counts 2 and 3, and the total sentence, which was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances.

Particulars

(a) The learned Judge placed too much weight on the views of the community.

(b) The learned Judge placed insufficient weight on the mitigating factors, in particular, the Applicant's mental state at…

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 Mitchell v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v The Queen [2003] WASCA 25
Case: [2003] WASCA 25
Decision Date: 4 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Mitchell v The Queen was heard and decided. The applicant, Mitchell, sought to appeal against his sentence for a criminal offence, arguing that the sentencing judge had not appropriately considered his good character, grief, and depression as mitigating factors. The Queen, represented by the Attorney-General, opposed the application for leave to appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to adequately account for these mitigating factors when determining the applicant's sentence.

The Court considered the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly the importance of ensuring that all relevant mitigating factors are given due consideration. The Court examined the sentencing judge's reasons and found that while the judge had acknowledged the mitigating factors, the weight given to them in the context of the overall sentencing was not unreasonable. The Court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that the judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating factors against the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

After careful consideration, the Court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in the way he considered the mitigating factors. The Court found that the application for leave to appeal did not demonstrate a sufficient arguable error of law to warrant an appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The orders of the Court reflect this decision, with the application for leave to appeal being dismissed and no appeal proceeding further.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to 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.