R v Barbis & Rouse

Case [2003] WASCA 107


R -v- BARBIS & ROUSE [2003] WASCA 107



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2003] WASCA 107
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:15/20031 MAY 2003
Coram:MALCOLM CJ
MCKECHNIE J
PULLIN J
28/05/03
32Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Both Crown appeals against sentence dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:THE QUEEN
DEJAN BARBIS
TONY ROUSE

Catchwords:

Criminal law
Sentence
Crown appeals
Two offenders convicted of aggravated burglary and unlawful wounding
Sentence on one co­offender who restrained householder while he was stabbed by the other sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for the burglary and 8 months for unlawful wounding
Second co­offender who, unknown to the first offender, was armed with a knife and stabbed the householder, sentenced to 12 months for the burglary and 2 years and 6 months' cumulative for unlawful wounding
Sentences imposed on second offender suspended
Failure by sentencing Judge to state extent of reduction of sentence for undertaking to assist law enforcement authorities
Mandatory provisions of s 8(5) of Sentencing Act not observed

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), ss 301(1), 401(a), 401(1)(a), 688(2)(a), 688(2)(d)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 8(5), 39(2), (3) and 76(1), (2)

Case References:

Barany v The Queen [2000] WASCA 240
Cork v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970664; 2 December 1997
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Everett and Phillips v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Heferen v The Queen [1999] WASCA 81
Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Mobilia v The Queen [2002] WASCA 130
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pezzino v The Queen [1997] 92 A Crim R 135
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v Shaharuddin [1999] WASCA 229
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998
van de Worp v The Queen[2000] WASCA 154
Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467
Watson v The Queen [2002] WASCA 8
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- BARBIS & ROUSE [2003] WASCA 107 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
    MCKECHNIE J
    PULLIN J
HEARD : 1 MAY 2003 DELIVERED : 28 MAY 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 15 of 2003 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
    Appellant

    AND

    DEJAN BARBIS
    Respondent
FILE NO/S : CCA 43 of 2003 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
    Appellant

    AND

    TONY ROUSE
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Crown appeals - Two offenders convicted of aggravated burglary and unlawful wounding - Sentence on one co­offender who




(Page 2)

restrained householder while he was stabbed by the other sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for the burglary and 8 months for unlawful wounding - Second co­offender who,…

Continue reading R v Barbis & Rouse

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Barbis & Rouse [2003] WASCA 107
Case
[2003] WASCA 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the Crown against the sentences imposed on two offenders, Barbis and Rouse, who were convicted of aggravated burglary and unlawful wounding. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal in Australia. Barbis restrained the householder during the burglary, while Rouse, unknown to Barbis, was armed with a knife and stabbed the householder. Barbis was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for the burglary and 8 months for the unlawful wounding. Rouse was sentenced to 12 months for the burglary and 2 years and 6 months cumulatively for the unlawful wounding. The sentences imposed on Rouse were suspended.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and whether the mandatory provisions of section 8(5) of the Sentencing Act were not observed by the sentencing judge in failing to state the extent of the reduction of sentence for undertaking to assist law enforcement authorities. The court had to determine if the sentences were appropriate and if the mandatory provisions of the Sentencing Act were properly applied.

The court found that the sentences imposed on the offenders were not manifestly inadequate. The court acknowledged that the sentences reflected the circumstances of the case and the offenders' roles in the crime. The court also found that the failure by the sentencing judge to state the extent of the reduction of sentence for undertaking to assist law enforcement authorities did not affect the overall sentence. The court held that the mandatory provisions of section 8(5) of the Sentencing Act were not strictly adhered to, but the error did not materially affect the sentences imposed.

Both Crown appeals against sentence dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Both Crown appeals against sentence dismissed

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.