Quartermaine v The Queen - [2000] WASCA 107

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: QUARTERMAINE -v-THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 107

CORAM: KENNEDY J
PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J

HEARD: 14 MARCH 2000

DELIVERED : 19 APRIL 2000

FILE NO/S: CCA 209 of 1999

BETWEEN: EDGAR LEO QUARTERMAINE
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Stealing a motor vehicle and wilfully driving the vehicle in a manner that constituted reckless driving - Two breaches of bail conditions - One offence of driving while legally disentitled to do so - Effective sentence of 3-1/4 years - Whether excessive

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Sentence varied

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr J A Sutherland
Respondent: Mr K P Bates & Mr A S Derrick

Solicitors:

Applicant: McDonald & Sutherland
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Carter v Denham [1984] WAR 123
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007

Case(s) also cited:

Bropho v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940197; 14 April 1994
Colbung v The Queen [1999] WASCA 138
Huynh v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950689; 1 December 1995
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
McColgan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970035; 6 February 1997
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Heferen (1999) 106 A Crim R 89
R v Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343
Rankins v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940669; 1 December 1994
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Yarran v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960556; 20 September 1996

KENNEDY J: On 14 September 1989, the applicant was presented in the District Court on an indictment containing the single count of having stolen a motor vehicle and then having wilfully driven that vehicle in a manner which constituted reckless driving. He pleaded guilty to this count. Pursuant to s 32 of the Sentencing Act 1995, he also pleaded guilty to a number of charges pending in the Court of Petty Sessions, of which only three are now material, except to the extent that one of the other charges, an assault occasioning bodily harm, attracted a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon the other sentences in respect of which custodial sentences were imposed. The three charges, the sentences in relation to which are the subject of the present application for leave to appeal, comprise two breaches of bail conditions and an offence of driving whilst legally disentitled to do so. In respect of the stealing offence, the learned sentencing Judge imposed a sentence of 2‑1/2 years' imprisonment. In respect of the breaches of bail conditions, he imposed a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment on each charge, those sentences to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the sentence…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quartermaine v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WASCA 107
Decision Date: 19 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Quartermaine v The Queen, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 3-1/4 years for multiple offences, including stealing a motor vehicle, driving that vehicle recklessly, and breaching bail conditions. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that it was excessive. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, which included the Honourable Justices Byrne and Muir.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offences and the need to deter such behaviour. The court also needed to weigh the appellant's personal circumstances and the need for rehabilitation against the need to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. The appellant's legal team argued that the sentence was disproportionate, given the appellant's otherwise good character and the fact that he had shown remorse for his actions. They also highlighted the appellant's difficult personal circumstances, including a history of mental health issues and substance abuse.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It noted that the offences were serious and that the appellant had shown a blatant disregard for the law and the safety of others. The court also considered the need to deter the appellant and others from committing similar offences. While the appellant's personal circumstances were taken into account, they were not deemed to be sufficient grounds for a substantial reduction in sentence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed. The appellant's sentence of 3-1/4 years was upheld, and he was required to serve the full term. The court also noted that the appellant's good behaviour while in custody would be taken into account when determining his release date.

Orders