R v Faithfull

Case [2004] WASCA 39


R -v- FAITHFULL [2004] WASCA 39



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2004] WASCA 39
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:180/20032 FEBRUARY 2004
Coram:MALCOLM CJ
WHEELER J
MCLURE J
16/03/04
11Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:THE QUEEN
KIM DAVID FAITHFULL

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure
Appeal against sentence
Scope and effect of one transaction rule
Whether one transaction rule applicable
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 378(7), s 586(1), s 689(3)
Sentencing Act 1995
Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003

Case References:

Attorney General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84
Brown v Lynch (1982) 5 A Crim R 404
Grabovac (1997) 92 A Crim R 258
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pieri v The Queen [2001] WASCA 357
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Clarke (1996) 2 VR 520
R v White [2002] WASCA 112
Ruane v R (1979) 1 A Crim R 284
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

Birch (1993) 69 A Crim R 181
Dillon (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 439
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Everett & Phillips v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Grubb v The Queen [2002] WASCA 158
Johnson v The Queen [2002] WASCA 102
R v Barbis & Rouse [2003] WASCA 107
R v Black [2002] WASCA 26
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
Shaw v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 343
The Queen v Carey (1975) 11 SASR 575

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- FAITHFULL [2004] WASCA 39 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
    WHEELER J
    MCLURE J
HEARD : 2 FEBRUARY 2004 DELIVERED : 16 MARCH 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 180 of 2003 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
    Appellant

    AND

    KIM DAVID FAITHFULL
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Scope and effect of one transaction rule - Whether one transaction rule applicable - Turns on own facts




Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 378(7), s 586(1), s 689(3)


Sentencing Act 1995
Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003


Result:

Appeal dismissed



(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Ms T D Sweeney
    Respondent : Mr P R Eaton


Solicitors:

    Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
    Respondent : Slater & Gordon



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

Attorney General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84
Brown v Lynch (1982) 5 A Crim R 404
Grabovac (1997) 92 A Crim R 258
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pieri v The Queen [2001] WASCA 357
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R…

Continue reading R v Faithfull

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Faithfull [2004] WASCA 39
Case
[2004] WASCA 39
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Faithfull, the appellant was convicted of three charges of fraud and faced sentencing in the County Court of Victoria. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for a total of five years, with a non-parole period of three years. The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence, contending that the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the "one transaction rule". This principle, as established in prior cases, suggests that when a series of fraudulent acts are part of a single transaction, the court should impose a single sentence rather than multiple sentences for each offence. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have imposed a single sentence for the three charges, rather than separate sentences for each.

The legal issue before the court was whether the "one transaction rule" applied to the facts of this case, and if so, how it should have been applied in sentencing. The court noted that the "one transaction rule" is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a guideline that must be applied flexibly to the facts of each case. The court acknowledged that the rule may be relevant where there are a series of fraudulent acts that are closely related in time, manner, and purpose. However, the court found that the appellant's crimes were not part of a single transaction, but rather separate and distinct acts of fraud. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to impose separate sentences for each of the three charges, as they were not part of a single continuous act.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had properly considered the principles of sentencing and had not erred in imposing separate sentences for each of the charges. The court noted that the appellant's crimes were serious and involved a significant degree of deception and dishonesty. The court held that the sentence imposed was not excessive, and that the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in determining the appropriate sentence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.