PENNINGS -v- MARYAN [2000] WASCA 172
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 172 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1025/2000 | 25 MAY 2000 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 23/06/00 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PETER ADRIAN JOSEPH PENNINGS BRADFORD MARYAN |
Catchwords: | Wildlife Conservation Act Sentencing Act Appeal against sentence under Justices Act Taking and being in possession of protected fauna Keeping fauna in confinement Snakes and snake eggs kept for scientific purposes Conditional release orders made Suitability of spent conviction orders |
Legislation: | Criminal Code Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Justices Act 1902, s 186, s 196, s 199, Sentencing Act 1995, s 6, s 7, s 8, s 9, s 12, s 39, s 44, s 45, s 46, s 47, s 53, s 54, s 59 Spent Convictions Act 1988, s 3, s 6, s 7, s8 Supreme Court Rules, O 63 r 2, O 65 r 10, O 65A r 3 Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, s 6, s 14, s 16(1), s 16A(1), s 26, s 27 Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970, reg 28 |
Case References: | Bembridge v G-K-R Karate Australia Pty Ltd (1998) 103 A Crim R 363 Coughran v Newing, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930720; 17 December 1993 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346 Laporte v The Queen [1970] WAR 87 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Starr [1999] WASCA 119 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31 Everett & Anor v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Harvey v Robertson [1999] WASCA 120 Leucas v R (1995) 78 A Crim R 40 R v Scidone, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990081; 8 February 1999 Sgroi v The Queen (1989) 40 A Crim R 197 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : PENNINGS -v- MARYAN [2000] WASCA 172 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 25 MAY 2000 DELIVERED : 23 JUNE 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1025 of 2000 BETWEEN : PETER ADRIAN JOSEPH PENNINGS
- Appellant
AND
BRADFORD MARYAN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Wildlife Conservation Act - Sentencing Act - Appeal against sentence under Justices Act - Taking and being in possession of protected fauna - Keeping fauna in confinement - Snakes and snake eggs kept for scientific purposes - Conditional release orders made - Suitability of spent conviction orders
Legislation:
Criminal Code
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976
Justices Act 1902, s 186, s 196, s 199,
Sentencing Act1995, s 6, s 7, s 8, s 9, s 12, s 39, s 44, s 45, s 46, s 47, s 53, s 54, s 59
Spent Convictions Act 1988, s 3, s 6, s 7, s8
Supreme Court Rules, O 63 r 2, O 65 r 10, O 65A r 3
Wildlife Conservation…
Continue reading Pennings v Maryan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Pennings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 172
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Pennings, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, which found him guilty of taking and being in possession of protected fauna and keeping fauna in confinement. The protected fauna in question were snakes and snake eggs, which were kept for scientific purposes. The court also made conditional release orders for the appellant and decided against making spent conviction orders. The respondent, Maryan, who represented the State of Western Australia, argued that the appeal should be dismissed.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the court was wrong in not making spent conviction orders. The court considered whether the appellant's conduct warranted a harsher sentence, given the scientific purpose of keeping the snakes and eggs, and whether the conditional release orders were appropriate. The court also considered whether the appellant's previous convictions and the seriousness of the offence warranted the making of spent conviction orders.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the conditional release orders were appropriate. The court held that the appellant's conduct, while scientifically motivated, still involved taking and keeping protected fauna without the necessary permits. The court also held that the appellant's previous convictions and the seriousness of the offence did not warrant the making of spent conviction orders. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence and orders made by the Magistrates Court were upheld.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the court was wrong in not making spent conviction orders. The court considered whether the appellant's conduct warranted a harsher sentence, given the scientific purpose of keeping the snakes and eggs, and whether the conditional release orders were appropriate. The court also considered whether the appellant's previous convictions and the seriousness of the offence warranted the making of spent conviction orders.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the conditional release orders were appropriate. The court held that the appellant's conduct, while scientifically motivated, still involved taking and keeping protected fauna without the necessary permits. The court also held that the appellant's previous convictions and the seriousness of the offence did not warrant the making of spent conviction orders. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence and orders made by the Magistrates Court were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.