Legal Research
Cases
R v Black

R v Black

Case [2002] WASCA 26 18 February 2002

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R -v- BLACK [2002] WASCA 26

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
WALLWORK J
WHITE AUJ

HEARD: 6 DECEMBER 2001

DELIVERED : 18 FEBRUARY 2002

FILE NO/S: CCA 127 of 2001

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND
ROBERT JAMES BLACK
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Crown appeal against sentence - Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 687(1), s 688(2), s 689(3)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R E Cock QC
Respondent: Mr R A Mazza

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Mazza & Mazza

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

Chua v The Queen [2001] WASCA 353
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Doherty v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970518; 14 October 1997
Heryadi (1998) 98 A Crim R 578
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Miles v R (1997) 17 WAR 518
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254
Thomson (2000) 115 A Crim R 104
Verschuren v R (1995) 17 WAR 467

Case(s) also cited:

Duffy (1996) 85 A Crim R 456
Haman v The Queen [2000] WASCA 369
Harrison v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930291; 27 May 1993
Hayes v R [1981] WAR 252
Jarvis v R (1998) 20 WAR 201
R v Birch (1993) 69 A Crim R
R v Everett (1994) 73 A Crim R 550
R v Greenburg (1993) 68 A Crim R
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Sivandran, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960154; 22 March 1996
R v Wilkinson (1996) 85 A Crim R 353
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21
Siganto (1998) 194 CLR 656
Streeton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library 950282; 1 June 1995

MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion this Crown appeal against sentence should be dismissed for the reasons to be published by White AUJ with which I am in complete agreement.
WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of White AUJ and to the order proposed by his Honour.
There is nothing I wish to add.
WHITE AUJ: This is a Crown appeal against sentence.
The respondent was presented before the District Court of Western Australia on 13 August 2001 on four counts of stealing as a servant and four counts of falsifying a record, to which charges he pleaded guilty. Mr Cock QC for the appellant submitted that the offences were of the utmost seriousness because:
"a.The period over which the dishonesty was perpetrated by the respondent was 7½ years from 17 September 1993 to 25 April 2001;
b.the amount of money left outstanding was $2,198,461.60 with no hope of restitution;
c.the quality and degree of trust reposed in the respondent was extreme;
d.the impact of the offences on the public and public confidence in…

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 R v Black

Details

AGLC: R v Black [2002] WASCA 26
Case: [2002] WASCA 26
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Black, was convicted of armed robbery and the court sentenced him to imprisonment. The Crown sought to appeal the sentence, contending that it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of the appropriate sentence for the appellant's crimes.

The central legal issue was whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crime or adequately serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation. The appellant, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was within the appropriate range given the circumstances and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court had to assess the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the severity of the crimes committed.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence and serve the broader purposes of the criminal justice system. The High Court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the need for deterrence and denunciation, and that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The final orders were that the appeal be allowed, and the matter be remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences imposed for serious crimes adequately reflect the gravity of the offence and serve the broader purposes of the criminal justice system.

Orders