MOODY -v- FRENCH & ANOR [2007] WASC 190
| Link to Appeal : |
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASC 190 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1030/2007 | 12 JUNE 2007 | |
| Coram: | JOHNSON J | 17/08/07 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed in part | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : MOODY -v- FRENCH & ANOR [2007] WASC 190 CORAM : JOHNSON J HEARD : 12 JUNE 2007 DELIVERED : 17 AUGUST 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1030 of 2007 BETWEEN : HAZEL AILEEN MOODY
- Appellant
AND
LANCE MICHAEL FRENCH
First Respondent
GERALD JOHN PILKINGTON
Second Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE W G TARR
File No : PH 1057 of 2005, PH 1262 of 2006, PH 1263 of 2006, GN 2520 of 2006, GN 2521 of 2006
Catchwords:
Traffic offences - Sentence - Effect of transitional provisions - Effect…
Continue reading Moody v French
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Moody v French [2007] WASC 190
- Case
- [2007] WASC 190
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Moody v French, the respondent appealed against the sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The appeal centred on the sentencing of the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to several charges related to traffic offences. The County Court had imposed a sentence of imprisonment, which the respondent argued was manifestly excessive. The respondent also sought clarification on the application of transitional provisions, the eligibility for parole, and whether the sentences should be served concurrently or cumulatively.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the totality principle and the effect of the plea of guilty. Additionally, the court had to address whether the sentence could be backdated to the date of the first offence and the eligibility of the respondent for parole. The court also needed to decide whether the sentences imposed were to be served concurrently or cumulatively.
The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, but noted that the sentence could be reduced if the appeal was allowed. The court emphasised the importance of the totality principle in sentencing and acknowledged the effect of the plea of guilty. Regarding the transitional provisions, the court found that the sentences should be backdated to the date of the first offence. The court also clarified that the sentences were to be served concurrently, not cumulatively. Finally, the court found that the respondent was eligible for parole after serving a specified period of the sentence.
The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence to a specified term of imprisonment. The sentence was to be backdated to the date of the first offence, and the sentences were to be served concurrently. The respondent was eligible for parole after serving the specified period of the sentence.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the totality principle and the effect of the plea of guilty. Additionally, the court had to address whether the sentence could be backdated to the date of the first offence and the eligibility of the respondent for parole. The court also needed to decide whether the sentences imposed were to be served concurrently or cumulatively.
The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, but noted that the sentence could be reduced if the appeal was allowed. The court emphasised the importance of the totality principle in sentencing and acknowledged the effect of the plea of guilty. Regarding the transitional provisions, the court found that the sentences should be backdated to the date of the first offence. The court also clarified that the sentences were to be served concurrently, not cumulatively. Finally, the court found that the respondent was eligible for parole after serving a specified period of the sentence.
The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence to a specified term of imprisonment. The sentence was to be backdated to the date of the first offence, and the sentences were to be served concurrently. The respondent was eligible for parole after serving the specified period of the sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed in part
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.