Legal Research
Cases
Powell v Fuller

Powell v Fuller

Case [2005] WASC 91 12 May 2005

Voluntariness of Pleas

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

POWELL -v- FULLER [2005] WASC 91

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 91
Case No:	SJA:1126/2004	Heard:	28 APRIL 2005
Coram:	JENKINS J	Delivered:	12/05/05
No of pages:	26	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeals dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STEVEN JOHN POWELL ADRIAN DAVID FULLER
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal Appeal against conviction where appellant pleaded guilty and was represented by counsel Procedure where defendant charged with indictable offence which includes a summary conviction penalty Appeal against sentence Whether sentence manifestly excessive
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 5, s 5(2), s 5(3), s 381(1), s 574(4) Criminal Code Amendment Act 2004 Justices Act 1902, s 99, s 196 Liquor Licensing Act (WA), s 115(6) Police Act (WA), s 20 Sentencing Act 1995, s 15 Supreme Court Rules, O 65A r 3
Case References:	Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999 Dhu v Ward [2000] WASCA 140 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54 Duffield v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950065; 14 February 1995 Long v Mayger [2004] WASCA 41 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677 R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400 R v Van (2002) 129 A Crim R 229 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Galasso v The Queen (1981) 4 A Crim R 454 Harriman (1989) 167 CLR 590 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mason v Strudwick, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 920703; 3 December 1992 Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619 Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 R v B (CR) (1990) 55 CCC (3d) 1 R v Boardman [1975] AC 421 R v Murphy [1965] VR 187 Re: Boothman, Ex parte Landers (1999) 108 A Crim R 329 Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : POWELL -v- FULLER [2005] WASC 91 CORAM : JENKINS J HEARD : 28 APRIL 2005 DELIVERED : 12 MAY 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1126 of 2004 MATTER : Justices Act 1902 BETWEEN : STEVEN JOHN POWELL

Appellant

AND

ADRIAN DAVID FULLER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR K T FISHER SM AND MR S M WILSON SM

File No : CO 355 of 2004, CO 356 of 2004, CO 357 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Appeal against conviction where appellant pleaded guilty and was represented by counsel - Procedure where defendant charged with indictable offence which includes a summary conviction penalty - Appeal against sentence - Whether sentence manifestly excessive

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 5, s 5(2), s 5(3), s 381(1), s 574(4)

Criminal Code Amendment…

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 Powell v Fuller

Details

AGLC: Powell v Fuller [2005] WASC 91
Case: [2005] WASC 91
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal was brought against the decision of the Court of Petty Sessions to convict and sentence the appellant on three separate charges. The appellant argued that there was a miscarriage of justice because he was inadequately represented by counsel, that his pleas of guilty were not voluntary, and that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice because the appellant's counsel was competent, and that the appellant understood the effect of his pleas of guilty. The court also found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive because the appellant had a significant history of similar offences and the offences in question were serious. The court found that the Magistrate was not obliged to advise the appellant of his right to have the indictable charge tried on indictment. Finally, the court found that the evidence of the appellant's witness should not be admitted on appeal because the evidence was not adduced at an appropriate time.

Orders