Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Three offences of armed robbery in company and one offence of attempted armed robbery in company - Aggregate term of 7-1/2 years imprisonment imposed - Co-offender sentenced to ISO for 2 years and 80 hours community service - Whether sentence of imprisonment should be reduced on ground of disparity

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Extension of time to appeal refused.

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr M T Trowell
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC & Ms J Andretich

Solicitors:

Applicant: Curt Hofmann & Co
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195
Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Calder v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960534; 11 September 1996
De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996
Fyfe & Ors v The Queen [1998] WASCA 59
Henry (1999) NSW CCA 111
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606
Manyam v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970644; 26 November 1997
Mortimer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970526; 14 October 1997
Nguyen v The Queen; Tran v The Queen [1999] WASCA 54
Postiglione v R (1997) 71 ALJR 875
R v Greenwood, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960277; 21 May 1996
R v McAndrew [1999] WASCA 124
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998
Thorne v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990154; 8 February 1999
Urquhart v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 95.0484; 13 September 1995
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 33 A Crim R 230
Walsh v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960471; 26 August 1996
Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

PIDGEON J: I agree with the reasons of Murray J and for those reasons I would refuse leave to appeal.
The circumstances surrounding the co‑offender were different. The Judge who sentenced the applicant was aware of those circumstances and referred to them. He was of the view that the applicant must be dealt with on a different basis. It could not be said that the applicant was suffering a sense of grievance.
WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Murray J and to the order proposed by his Honour.
MURRAY J: This…

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 Puls v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Puls v The Queen [2000] WASCA 11
Case: [2000] WASCA 11
Decision Date: 4 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the respondent, Puls, against his sentence was heard in the High Court. Puls had been convicted of three counts of armed robbery in company and one count of attempted armed robbery in company. The trial judge sentenced Puls to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7-1/2 years. The co-offender received a sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and 80 hours of community service. Puls contended that his sentence should be reduced because of a disparity with the sentence of his co-offender.

The court considered the relevant sentencing principles and the importance of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing. The court noted that the co-offender's lesser sentence was due to their plea of guilty and lesser role in the offences. The court emphasised that the trial judge had properly considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in Puls's case and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the disparity between the sentences did not render Puls's sentence unreasonable or unjust.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The co-offender's sentence was also upheld as appropriate given their role in the offences and their plea of guilty. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing and the trial judge's consideration of all relevant factors in Puls's case. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders