NARRIER -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 86
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 86 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:91/1998 | 1 NOVEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 6/04/00 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Order for indefinite imprisonment quashed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PATRICK LEONARD NARRIER THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Indefinite sentence Serious offences Very deprived background Remorse for offences Responsibility for offences accepted Capacity and motivation for treatment Treatment available in prison -Whether indefinite sentence should have been imposed |
Legislation: | Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 98 |
Case References: | Chester v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 611 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jones v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980246; 8 May 1998 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Moffatt (1997) 91 A Crim R 557 R v Lowndes (1997) 95 A Crim R 516 Thompson v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1319 Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Bowdidge v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920191; 3 April 1992 Bugmy v R (1990) 169 CLR 525 Deakin v R (1984) 58 ALJR 367 Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81 Jarvis v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930391; 14 June 1993 Kilner v R [1999] WASCA 189 Little v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970031; 3 February 1997 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Nguyen v R [1999] WASCA 54 Pezzino v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 135 Podirsky (1989) A Crim R 404 Power v R (1974) 131 CLR 623 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Cooper (1987) 30 A Crim R 19 R v Gooch (1989) 43 A Crim R 382 R v Narrier (1998) 19 SR (WA) 247 Robbins v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930136; 11 February 1993 Stewart v R [1999] WASCA 7 Tunaj v R [1984] WAR 48 Veen v R (1979) 143 CLR 458 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 33 A Crim R 230 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Woods v R (1994) 14 WAR 341 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NARRIER -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 86 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Indefinite sentence - Serious offences - Very deprived background - Remorse for offences - Responsibility for offences accepted - Capacity and motivation for treatment - Treatment available in prison -Whether indefinite sentence should have been imposed
Legislation:
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 98
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal…
Continue reading Narrier v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Narrier v The Queen [2000] WASCA 86
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 86
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Narrier, appealed against his indefinite sentence for serious offences, arguing that the court should not have imposed such a sentence. Narrier accepted responsibility for his actions and demonstrated remorse, but his background was very deprived. The court had to decide whether an indefinite sentence was appropriate given his background and the availability of treatment in prison. The appeal was allowed, and the order for indefinite imprisonment was quashed, granting the appellant leave to appeal.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the imposition of an indefinite sentence was justified in light of Narrier's background and the availability of treatment in prison. The court also considered whether Narrier's acceptance of responsibility and remorse were relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The central question was whether an indefinite sentence was necessary to protect the community given the nature of the offences and the risk posed by Narrier.
The court found that Narrier's very deprived background and his acceptance of responsibility and remorse were significant mitigating factors. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, the court determined that an indefinite sentence was not warranted. The court reasoned that the availability of treatment in prison, combined with Narrier's remorse and acceptance of responsibility, made an indefinite sentence unnecessary. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was disproportionate and that an alternative sentence would be more appropriate.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the imposition of an indefinite sentence was justified in light of Narrier's background and the availability of treatment in prison. The court also considered whether Narrier's acceptance of responsibility and remorse were relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The central question was whether an indefinite sentence was necessary to protect the community given the nature of the offences and the risk posed by Narrier.
The court found that Narrier's very deprived background and his acceptance of responsibility and remorse were significant mitigating factors. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, the court determined that an indefinite sentence was not warranted. The court reasoned that the availability of treatment in prison, combined with Narrier's remorse and acceptance of responsibility, made an indefinite sentence unnecessary. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was disproportionate and that an alternative sentence would be more appropriate.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Order for indefinite imprisonment quashed
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.