Criminal Law and Procedure - Sentence - Co-offenders - Parity Principle - Kidnapping Robbery and Stealing by two offenders - Both offenders sentenced to 9 years imprisonment - Applicant 20 years of age - Co-offender 40 years of age with worse antecedents - Whether offence so serious as to render antecedents of no significance - Sentence upheld

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr J D Allanson
Respondent: Mr S E Stone

Solicitors:

Applicant: J J Scudds & Associates
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Lovelock v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 132
Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Hall v The Queen [1999] WASCA 176
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Miles v The Queen (1997) WAR 518
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998

MALCOLM CJ: I would refuse this application for leave to appeal against sentence for the reasons to be published by Pidgeon J.
PIDGEON J: The appellant is seeking leave to appeal against a total effective sentence of 9 years imprisonment imposed on him for offences of kidnapping, robbery and stealing. The principle ground of appeal is limited to a short but important point. It was not an issue that the offences were of the utmost seriousness but it was submitted that the marked difference in the antecedents and circumstances between the applicant and his co-offender should have resulted in the applicant receiving a lesser sentence than that received by the other offender.
The applicant was born on 19 May 1978. He was, after leaving school, apprenticed as a boilermaker but did not complete the apprenticeship as his employer went bankrupt. He obtained an AUSTUDY grant and was enrolled in an Art and Design Course when he was arrested on his present offences. He had only one conviction in the Children's Court of reckless driving. However, during 1998, he appeared on three occasions in the Court of Petty Sessions. The first was on the 20 July 1998, not long after his twentieth birthday, when he was convicted of his second offence of reckless driving. On 19 November 1998 he was fined $100 for the possession of a smoking implement. This may have been an indication of a problem with drugs he was then having. Within the month he was again in the Court of Petty Sessions and convicted of a charge of stealing from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Peters v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Peters v The Queen [2000] WASCA 28
Case: [2000] WASCA 28
Decision Date: 21 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, Peters sought to appeal his sentence of nine years' imprisonment for crimes of kidnapping, robbery, and stealing committed in conjunction with a co-offender. The appeal was predicated on the assertion that the sentencing was inconsistent with the parity principle due to the disparity in the ages and criminal histories of the two offenders. Peters, who was 20 years of age at the time of the offence, argued that his sentence should have reflected his youth and relatively clean criminal record in comparison to his co-offender, who was 40 years old and had significantly more severe criminal antecedents. The crux of the legal issue before the court was whether the gravity of the crimes committed warranted disregarding the co-offender's extensive criminal history and Peters' youth in the sentencing process.

The court examined whether the offences were of such a serious nature that they justified imposing equal sentences on both offenders, irrespective of their differing backgrounds. It was acknowledged that generally, sentencing should account for the individual circumstances of each offender, including age and criminal history, to adhere to the parity principle. However, the court held that the seriousness of the offences, which involved a substantial degree of planning, violence, and risk to the victims, warranted a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes. The nature of the offences, coupled with the need for general and specific deterrence, led the court to conclude that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not contravene the parity principle. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The reasoning of the court underscored the need to balance the principle of parity in sentencing with the imperatives of justice and deterrence in cases involving serious crimes. By upholding the sentence, the court emphasised the importance of recognising the severity of the offences committed while also maintaining a framework that allows for consideration of individual offender circumstances. The decision highlights the court's approach to ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the crime while also reflecting broader societal interests in crime prevention and deterrence.

Orders