PAVLITSAS -v- ROWE [2013] WASC 233
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 233 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1147/2012 | 19 APRIL 2013 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 19/06/13 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted on grounds 1 and 3 Appeal allowed Sentences set aside and appellant resentenced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANTHONY PAVLITSAS MITCHELL STEVEN ROWE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Breach of bail Traffic offences Whether fines imposed manifestly excessive Whether amount of fines failed to take into account time spent in custody Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Hamlett v Whitney [2013] WASC 100 Hodder v Skamp [No 2] [2009] WASC 53 Hoskins v Ramsden [2008] WASC 28 Hussaini v Szolnoski [2013] WASC 64 Mears v Holleman [2010] WASC 39 Narkle v Hamilton [2008] WASCA 31 Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Faithfull [2004] WASCA 39; (2004) A Crim R 554 Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319 Sgroi (1989) 40 A Crim R 197 Sheiner v Roberts [2009] WASC 281 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
MITCHELL STEVEN ROWE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE B A LANE
File No : PE 34806 of 2012, PE 34807 of 2012, PE 34827 of 2012, PE 34828 of 2012, PE 34829 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Breach of bail - Traffic offences - Whether fines imposed manifestly excessive - Whether amount of fines failed to take into account time spent in custody - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal granted on grounds 1 and 3
Appeal allowed
Sentences set aside and appellant resentenced
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr A J Robson
Respondent : Ms M J Woo
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Hamlett v Whitney [2013] WASC 100
Hodder v Skamp [No 2] [2009] WASC 53
Hoskins v Ramsden [2008] WASC 28
Hussaini v Szolnoski [2013] WASC 64
Mears v Holleman [2010] WASC 39
Narkle v Hamilton [2008] WASCA 31
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Faithfull [2004] WASCA 39; (2004) A Crim R 554
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Royer v The…
Continue reading Pavlitsas v Rowe
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- PAVLITSAS -v- ROWE [2013] WASC 233
- Case
- [2013] WASC 233
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Pavlitsas v Rowe is a case concerning an appeal against sentence, specifically regarding fines imposed on the appellant for breaching bail conditions and traffic offences. The appellant was initially convicted and sentenced in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, which consists of three judges.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the fines imposed on the appellant were manifestly excessive and whether the amount of the fines failed to take into account the time the appellant had already spent in custody. The court had to determine if the sentences were unjust and needed to be reviewed. The appellant argued that the fines were excessive and did not consider the time already served, while the respondent maintained that the fines were appropriate given the nature of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct.
The court examined the circumstances of the case and considered the principles of sentencing in relation to breaches of bail and traffic offences. The court noted that the amount of a fine should be proportionate to the offence and should not be excessive or oppressive. It also considered the principle that a fine should not be imposed if the offender has already served a significant period in custody. The court found that the fines imposed were indeed excessive and failed to take into account the time spent in custody, which warranted a reduction in the fines. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentences, ordering that the appellant be re-sentenced.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the fines imposed on the appellant were manifestly excessive and whether the amount of the fines failed to take into account the time the appellant had already spent in custody. The court had to determine if the sentences were unjust and needed to be reviewed. The appellant argued that the fines were excessive and did not consider the time already served, while the respondent maintained that the fines were appropriate given the nature of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct.
The court examined the circumstances of the case and considered the principles of sentencing in relation to breaches of bail and traffic offences. The court noted that the amount of a fine should be proportionate to the offence and should not be excessive or oppressive. It also considered the principle that a fine should not be imposed if the offender has already served a significant period in custody. The court found that the fines imposed were indeed excessive and failed to take into account the time spent in custody, which warranted a reduction in the fines. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentences, ordering that the appellant be re-sentenced.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted on grounds 1 and 3
Appeal allowed
Sentences set aside and appellant resentenced
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.