PIERI -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 288

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 288
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:38/2002	Heard:	2 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	STEYTLER J MILLER J SHEPPARD AUJ	Delivered:	2/10/02
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MARIO GUISEPPE PIERI THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Receiving stolen property 18 months' imprisonment imposed Whether sentencing Judge failed to consider effect of sentence being made cumulative upon sentences being served by applicant for other offences Application of totality principle Whether insufficient weight accorded to applicant's plea of guilty Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 414, s 689(3) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 93(1)(b), s 94(1), s 94(2), s 94(3)
Case References:	Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999 Anglesey v The Queen [2002] WASCA 194 Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Ford (1998) 103 A Crim R 501

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : PIERI -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 288 CORAM : STEYTLER J

MILLER J

SHEPPARD AUJ

HEARD : 2 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 2 OCTOBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 38 of 2002 BETWEEN : MARIO GUISEPPE PIERI

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

The Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Receiving stolen property - 18 months' imprisonment imposed - Whether sentencing Judge failed to consider effect of sentence being made cumulative upon sentences being served by applicant for other offences - Application of totality principle - Whether insufficient weight accorded to applicant's plea of guilty - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 414, s 689(3)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 93(1)(b), s 94(1), s 94(2), s 94(3)

(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr M M Flynn

The Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

Applicant : Legal Aid of Western Australia

The Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999

Case(s) also cited:

Anglesey v The Queen [2002] WASCA 194
Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Ford (1998) 103 A Crim R 501

(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2 On 22 February 2002 the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty in the District Court to…

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 Pieri v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pieri v The Queen [2002] WASCA 288
Case: [2002] WASCA 288
Decision Date: 2 OCTOBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Pieri, sought leave to appeal against his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for receiving stolen property. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had failed to consider the effect of the sentence being cumulative upon the sentences Pieri was already serving for other offences, and whether the totality principle was properly applied. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentencing judge had accorded insufficient weight to Pieri's plea of guilty. The case hinged on its own unique set of facts.

The court examined the sentencing judge's reasoning and found that the judge had indeed considered the cumulative effect of the sentences and had applied the totality principle appropriately. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge had taken into account the concurrent nature of the sentences and the need to ensure that the overall punishment was proportionate to the totality of Pieri's criminal conduct. The court also found that the sentencing judge had given due weight to Pieri's plea of guilty, which was reflected in the sentence imposed.

Consequently, the High Court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various factors relevant to the sentencing process and had not erred in imposing the 18 months' imprisonment. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused. The court's decision underscored the importance of a thorough consideration of all relevant factors, including the effect of cumulative sentences and the weight of a plea of guilty, in the sentencing process.

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.