PINKSTONE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 228
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 228 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:15/2000 | 13 JULY 2000 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J WALLWORK J ANDERSON J | 24/08/00 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Total sentence of 2 years imprisonment reduced to 15 months imprisonment and minimum term reduced from 12 months to 7 months | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Statutory maximum penalty for offence relatively low Significance of this Two passport offences Legislative policy disclosed by the statutory maximum General pattern of sentencing important |
Legislation: | Passports Act 1938 (Cth), s 10(1)(a) |
Case References: | Oliver v The Queen (1982) 7 A Crim R 174 Atholwood v The Queen [1999] WASCA 256 Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1956) 94 CLR 621 Baker v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1996) FCR 494 Baumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51 Canino v Venning (1993) 66 A Crim R 92 Doherty v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970518; 14 October 1997 Holder & Johnston (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 504 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 R v Amos, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; 27 November 1996 R v De Havilland (1983) Crim LR 489 R v Ferrier - Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 R v Gallagher (1991) 53 A Crim R 248 R v Hoad (1989) 42 A Crim R 312 R v Lux, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; 26 August 1988 R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368 R v Ryan [1989] 1 Qd R 188 R v Spiero (1981) 26 SASR 577 R v Storey (1998) 1 VR 359 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 387 R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345 R v Yu, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; 1 September 1995 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Ward v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7891; 17 October 1989 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : PINKSTONE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 228 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Statutory maximum penalty for offence relatively low - Significance of this - Two passport offences - Legislative policy disclosed by the statutory maximum - General pattern of sentencing important
Legislation:
Passports Act 1938 (Cth), s 10(1)(a)
Result:
Total sentence of 2 years imprisonment reduced to 15 months imprisonment and minimum term reduced from 12 months to 7 months
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr C Steirn SC & Mr M J Bowden
Respondent…
Continue reading Pinkstone v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 228
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 228
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Pinkstone versus The Queen, the appellant was convicted of two passport offences and was sentenced to a total of two years imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 12 months. Pinkstone appealed the severity of the sentence, arguing that the statutory maximum penalty for the offences was relatively low, suggesting legislative policy which should be considered in sentencing. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate weight to give to the statutory maximum penalty in sentencing, and whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion.
The court considered the significance of the statutory maximum penalty in relation to the offences committed. It was noted that the maximum penalty was relatively low, reflecting legislative policy. The court examined the general pattern of sentencing for similar offences to determine if the trial judge's sentence was consistent with this pattern. The court held that while the statutory maximum penalty is an important consideration, it is not determinative of the sentence. The trial judge must also consider other factors, such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.
After reviewing the trial judge's sentencing remarks, the court found that the judge had appropriately exercised his discretion but had placed too much weight on the need for general deterrence. The court reduced the total sentence to 15 months imprisonment and reduced the minimum non-parole period from 12 months to 7 months. This decision highlights the importance of considering legislative policy and the general pattern of sentencing when determining an appropriate sentence, while also ensuring that the trial judge exercises their discretion appropriately.
The court considered the significance of the statutory maximum penalty in relation to the offences committed. It was noted that the maximum penalty was relatively low, reflecting legislative policy. The court examined the general pattern of sentencing for similar offences to determine if the trial judge's sentence was consistent with this pattern. The court held that while the statutory maximum penalty is an important consideration, it is not determinative of the sentence. The trial judge must also consider other factors, such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.
After reviewing the trial judge's sentencing remarks, the court found that the judge had appropriately exercised his discretion but had placed too much weight on the need for general deterrence. The court reduced the total sentence to 15 months imprisonment and reduced the minimum non-parole period from 12 months to 7 months. This decision highlights the importance of considering legislative policy and the general pattern of sentencing when determining an appropriate sentence, while also ensuring that the trial judge exercises their discretion appropriately.
Orders
Orders of the court
Total sentence of 2 years imprisonment reduced to 15 months imprisonment and minimum term reduced from 12 months to 7 months
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.