PRATT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 110

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 110
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:135/1999	Heard:	3 APRIL 2000
Coram:	WALLWORK J MURRAY J SCOTT J	Delivered:	5/05/00
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
PDF Version

Parties:	SCOTT ANTHONY PRATT THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Application for leave to appeal against sentence Armed robbery Use of blood-filled syringe Syringe as a weapon warranting of a higher sentence Deterrence Totality principle Sentence not outside appropriate range
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 391, s 393 Sentencing Act, s 32
Case References:	House v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 578 Taylor v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998 R v Henry (1996) 46 NSWLR 346 Shooter v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970628; 21 November 1997

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : PRATT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 110 CORAM : WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

SCOTT J

HEARD : 3 APRIL 2000 DELIVERED : 5 MAY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 135 of 1999 BETWEEN : SCOTT ANTHONY PRATT

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Armed robbery - Use of blood-filled syringe - Syringe as a weapon warranting of a higher sentence - Deterrence - Totality principle - Sentence not outside appropriate range

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 391, s 393

Sentencing Act, s 32

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr M Mischin

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

House v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 578
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998

Case(s) also cited:

R v Henry (1996) 46 NSWLR 346
Shooter v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970628; 21 November 1997

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Scott J and to the order proposed by his Honour.

2 MURRAY J: I have read the reasons to be published by Scott J and I agree that in this case leave to appeal should be refused.

3 In my opinion also the total term is not too severe for the criminality involved and there is insufficient disparity between this case and that of Orchard to warrant interference.

4 SCOTT J: The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against a sentence of 9 years' imprisonment with an order for eligibility for parole following his conviction on two counts of armed robbery, the first of which was alleged to have occurred in circumstances where he used personal violence.

5 In addition,…

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 Pratt v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pratt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 110
Case: [2000] WASCA 110
Decision Date: 5 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pratt v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant for armed robbery. The appellant, Pratt, was convicted of armed robbery where he used a blood-filled syringe as a weapon during the commission of the crime. Pratt sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had misapplied the principles of sentencing by not recognising the syringe as a dangerous weapon warranting a higher penalty. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in considering the syringe as a weapon and whether the sentence imposed was outside the appropriate range for the offence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the totality principle and the need for deterrence warranted a higher sentence than that imposed. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not adequately considered the syringe as a dangerous weapon, and that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crime.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court held that the trial judge had appropriately considered the nature of the weapon and the principles of sentencing. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence of armed robbery, taking into account the totality principle and the need for deterrence. The court emphasised that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and was not excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

The final order of the court was to refuse the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence. The High Court confirmed that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and within the range that could be imposed for the offence of armed robbery. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the totality principle and the need for deterrence, while also recognising the importance of proportionality in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.