Narrier v The State of Western Australia

In the matter of Narrier v The State of Western Australia, the respondent sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant, Narrier, had been convicted of stealing a motor vehicle and driving it recklessly in a manner that endangered the life, health or safety of another person. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed on the charges was manifestly excessive and whether the first limb of the totality principle was infringed. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that it was disproportionate to the offending, given the absence of any physical injury to the victim. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe the first limb of the totality principle.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offending, the character of the offender and the need for general and specific deterrence. It found that the applicant had driven the stolen vehicle at a high speed, with a disregard for the safety of others on the road, and that his offending had placed the lives of other road users in danger. The court held that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offending and that it served the purposes of general and specific deterrence. The court also found that the sentence did not infringe the first limb of the totality principle, which requires that the totality of the sentences imposed for multiple offences should not be manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentence imposed on each count was appropriate and that the totality of the sentences was not manifestly excessive.

The court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The applicant was not entitled to leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, as the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe the first limb of the totality principle. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offending, the character of the offender and the purposes of sentencing. The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed.