Norton v The Queen

Case [2003] WASCA 86


NORTON -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 86



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2003] WASCA 86
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL28/04/2003
Case No:CCA:152/200220 MARCH 2003
Coram:ANDERSON J
PARKER J
MCKECHNIE J
20/03/03
10Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for leave to appeal refused
B
PDF Version
Parties:ANDREW PHILLIP NORTON
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:

Criminal law
Sentencing
Social Security fraud
Fixing minimum period before parole
Whether reasons must be articulated

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Part 1B, s 16A, s 19AB(1), s 19AB(3), s 19AB(4)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s 1231

Case References:

Doherty v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970518; 14 October 1997
Nunn v Kinnon (1988) 4 WAR 459
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623. ,
R v Mitchell, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980618; 28 October 1998
R v Rice, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950444; 3 August 1995
R v Rossi & Bowman (1988) 4 WAR 463
R v Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418

Attorney-General v Kortum, unreported; CCA SCt of Vic; 23 September 1977
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 1538
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Cameron and Simounds, unreported; CCA SCt of SA; Library No S4051; 19 July 1993
R v Doherty, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970518; 14 October 1997
R v Hickey, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950587; 3 November 1995
R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141
R v Paunovic (1990) 51 A Crim R 174
Ralph v Nawrojee [2003] WASCA 5

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NORTON -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 86 CORAM : ANDERSON J
    PARKER J
    MCKECHNIE J
HEARD : 20 MARCH 2003 DELIVERED : 20 MARCH 2003 PUBLISHED : 28 APRIL 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 152 of 2002 BETWEEN : ANDREW PHILLIP NORTON
    Applicant

    AND

    THE QUEEN
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Social Security fraud - Fixing minimum period before parole - Whether reasons must be articulated




Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Part 1B, s 16A, s 19AB(1), s 19AB(3), s 19AB(4)


Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s 1231

(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused




Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    Applicant : Mr A E Monisse
    Respondent : Mr A L Troy


Solicitors:

    Applicant : J D Hawkins & Associates
    Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions



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

Doherty v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970518; 14 October 1997
Nunn v Kinnon (1988) 4 WAR 459
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623. ,
R v Mitchell, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980618; 28 October 1998
R v Rice, unreported;…

Continue reading Norton v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Norton v The Queen [2003] WASCA 86
Case
[2003] WASCA 86
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Norton v The Queen involved the sentencing of the appellant, who had been convicted of social security fraud. The appellant challenged the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal to fix a minimum period before parole eligibility, arguing that the reasons for this decision were inadequate. The appellant sought leave to appeal to the High Court, which was ultimately refused. The central issue before the court was whether a sentencing judge is required to articulate reasons when fixing a minimum period before parole eligibility. The appellant contended that the lack of articulated reasons rendered the decision unlawful. The court, however, held that while reasons are generally necessary for a sentence to be valid, the requirement to articulate reasons is not absolute, particularly in cases involving the fixing of a minimum period before parole eligibility. The court found that the reasons provided by the sentencing judge, although not extensive, were sufficient to demonstrate that the decision was made with consideration of the relevant factors. The decision to refuse leave to appeal was based on the court's view that the appeal did not have a real chance of success, as the reasons provided were adequate, and the appellant's argument that the reasons must be articulated was not well-founded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.