MOYLE -v- THE STATE [2004] WASCA 166

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 166
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:14/2004	Heard:	19 JULY 2004
Coram:	STEYTLER J LE MIERE J JENKINS J	Delivered:	9/08/04
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CRAIG LAWRENCE MOYLE THE STATE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Totality principle Applicant convicted of aggravated armed robbery, attempted aggravated armed robbery, assault with intent to prevent arrest, stealing and breach of intensive supervision orders Total sentence of 6 years' imprisonment Unfavourable antecedents No error by sentencing Judge in exercise of his discretion as regards issue of totality Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999 Dermish v The Queen [2000] WASCA 418 Munro v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970022; 6 February 1997 Norman v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7489; 1 February 1989 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Valentine [2003] WASCA 7 R v White [2002] WASCA 112 Stone v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7417; 1 December 1988

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MOYLE -v- THE STATE [2004] WASCA 166 CORAM : STEYTLER J

LE MIERE J

JENKINS J

HEARD : 19 JULY 2004 DELIVERED : 9 AUGUST 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 14 of 2004 BETWEEN : CRAIG LAWRENCE MOYLE

Applicant

AND

THE STATE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : ROBERTS-SMITH J

File Number : INS 244 of 2003

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Totality principle - Applicant convicted of aggravated armed robbery, attempted aggravated armed robbery, assault with intent to prevent arrest, stealing and breach of intensive supervision

(Page 2)

orders - Total sentence of 6 years' imprisonment - Unfavourable antecedents - No error by sentencing Judge in exercise of his discretion as regards issue of totality - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr H Sklarz

Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

Applicant : Henry Sklarz

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999

Case(s) also cited:

Dermish v The Queen [2000] WASCA 418

(Page 3)

Munro v The Queen, unreported; CCA…

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 Moyle v The State

Details

AGLC: Moyle v The State [2004] WASCA 166
Case: [2004] WASCA 166
Decision Date: 9 AUGUST 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Moyle v The State, the applicant, Moyle, appealed against his sentence following a conviction for multiple offences including aggravated armed robbery, attempted aggravated armed robbery, assault with intent to prevent arrest, stealing, and breach of intensive supervision orders. The sentence imposed was a total of six years' imprisonment. The appeal focused on whether the sentencing judge had erred in applying the totality principle, considering the cumulative effect of the offences and Moyle's unfavourable antecedents. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the exercise of discretion by the sentencing judge.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the principles of sentencing, particularly the application of the totality principle. The court had to determine if the sentence was appropriate in light of the cumulative effect of the offences and Moyle's criminal history. The court examined whether the sentencing judge had correctly exercised his discretion, considering the totality principle and whether the sentence was disproportionate given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the totality principle and the applicant's criminal history. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had exercised his discretion correctly and found no error in the sentence imposed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was denied.

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.