R -v- COMBO [2015] WASCA 34
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASCA 34 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:157/2014 | 18 DECEMBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P NEWNES JA MAZZA JA | 24/02/15 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeals allowed Orders made by sentencing judge set aside Respondents resentenced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN WAYNE EDWARD COMBO RAYMOND ERNEST CRAKE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeals against sentence Manifest inadequacy Type of sentence Application of comparative sentences Findings relating to cooperation and restitution Residual discretion |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), pt 1B, s 19(2) Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.2, s 131.1, s 135.1, s 142.2 |
Case References: | A Child v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 285 Barany v The Queen (2000) 114 A Crim R 426 Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; (2014) 305 ALR 323 Beins v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 54 DPP v Karazisis [2010] VSCA 350 Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 Matthews v The Queen [2014] VSCA 291 Munda v The State of Western Australia (2013) 302 ALR 207 MXP v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 215 R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66 R v Lee [2013] WASCA 216 R v Ng [2012] WASCA 180 The State of Western Australia v Peacock [2013] WASCA 248 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : R -v- COMBO [2015] WASCA 34 CORAM : McLURE P
- NEWNES JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
WAYNE EDWARD COMBO
Respondent
- Appellant
AND
RAYMOND ERNEST CRAKE
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : McCANN DCJ
File No : IND 701 of 2013
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeals against sentence - Manifest inadequacy - Type of sentence - Application of comparative sentences - Findings relating to cooperation and restitution - Residual discretion
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), pt 1B, s 19(2)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.2, s 131.1, s 135.1, s 142.2
Result:
Appeals allowed
Orders made by sentencing judge set aside
Respondents resentenced
Category: B
Representation:
CACR 157 of 2014
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr G Rice QC & Ms S J Oliver
Respondent : Mr S D Freitag
Solicitors:
Appellant : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Respondent : Simon Freitag
CACR 158 of 2014
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr G Rice QC & Ms S J Oliver
Respondent : Mr S Vandongen SC
Solicitors:
Appellant : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Respondent : C & G Miocevich Law Offices Pty Ltd
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
A Child v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 285
Continue reading R v Combo
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Combo [2015] WASCA 34
- Case
- [2015] WASCA 34
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellants, Combo and his co-offenders, were convicted of serious drug offences and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. They appealed against their sentences, arguing that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the sentences were so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court, and if so, whether the appeal could be allowed. Another issue was whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the principle of parity, which requires that sentences for similar offences be comparable. The appellants also argued that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to their cooperation with authorities and efforts towards restitution.
The court considered whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate by comparing them to sentences imposed in similar cases. The court found that the sentences imposed were indeed manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the gravity of the offences. It held that the sentencing judge had not properly applied the principle of parity, and had not adequately considered the appellants' cooperation and efforts towards restitution. The court exercised its residual discretion to set aside the sentences and resentence the appellants. The court noted that while the appellants' cooperation and efforts towards restitution were relevant, they did not excuse the seriousness of the offences committed.
The appeals were allowed, and the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were set aside. The respondents were resentenced by the court. The court emphasised the importance of considering comparative sentences, cooperation, and restitution in sentencing, and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offences committed. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and just, and that all relevant factors are properly considered.
The court considered whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate by comparing them to sentences imposed in similar cases. The court found that the sentences imposed were indeed manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the gravity of the offences. It held that the sentencing judge had not properly applied the principle of parity, and had not adequately considered the appellants' cooperation and efforts towards restitution. The court exercised its residual discretion to set aside the sentences and resentence the appellants. The court noted that while the appellants' cooperation and efforts towards restitution were relevant, they did not excuse the seriousness of the offences committed.
The appeals were allowed, and the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were set aside. The respondents were resentenced by the court. The court emphasised the importance of considering comparative sentences, cooperation, and restitution in sentencing, and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offences committed. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and just, and that all relevant factors are properly considered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals allowed
Orders made by sentencing judge set aside
Respondents resentenced
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.