R -v- POOTER [2001] WASCA 67

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 67
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL	Published:	12/03/2001
Case No:	CCA:240/2000	Heard:	16 FEBRUARY 2001
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ STEYTLER J STEIN AJ	Delivered:	16/02/01
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN NATHAN DAVID JAMES POOTER
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Crown appeal Various offences including aggravated robbery and stealing a motor vehicle Previous criminal history No period of imprisonment ordered Intensive supervision order for 24 months imposed Whether manifestly inadequate Lapse of time Rehabilitation Interests of the offender and the community considered Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 Mortimer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970526; 14 October 1997 Ord v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950535; 19 October 1995 R v Thomson & Anor (1998) 105 A Crim R 150 R v Wiltshire [1999] WASCA 113 Steer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980739; 1 December 1998 Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- POOTER [2001] WASCA 67 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

STEYTLER J

STEIN AJ

HEARD : 16 FEBRUARY 2001 DELIVERED : 16 FEBRUARY 2001 PUBLISHED : 12 MARCH 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 240 of 2000 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND

NATHAN DAVID JAMES POOTER

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Crown appeal - Various offences including aggravated robbery and stealing a motor vehicle - Previous criminal history - No period of imprisonment ordered - Intensive supervision order for 24 months imposed - Whether manifestly inadequate - Lapse of time - Rehabilitation - Interests of the offender and the community considered - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr K P Bates

Respondent : Ms A E Horrigan

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Andree Horrigan

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

R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178

Case(s) also cited:

Mortimer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970526; 14 October 1997
Ord v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950535; 19 October 1995
R v Thomson & Anor (1998) 105 A Crim R 150
R v Wiltshire [1999] WASCA 113
Steer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980739; 1 December 1998
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is a…

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 Pooter

Details

AGLC: R v Pooter [2001] WASCA 67
Case: [2001] WASCA 67
Decision Date: 12 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Pooter, the respondent stood before the court facing multiple charges, including aggravated robbery and stealing a motor vehicle. The case reached the court as an appeal by the Crown, contesting the sentencing imposed on the respondent. The sentencing did not include any period of imprisonment; instead, an intensive supervision order was imposed for a duration of 24 months. The Crown argued that this sentence was manifestly inadequate, considering the respondent's criminal history and the nature of the offences.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in light of the respondent's criminal history and the gravity of the offences committed. The court was tasked with balancing the interests of the respondent, focusing on their rehabilitation and potential for reform, against the interests of the community, which demanded appropriate punishment and deterrence. This involved a nuanced assessment of the respondent's circumstances, the specific facts of the case, and the objectives of sentencing under Australian criminal law.

The court meticulously examined the respondent's background, including their previous criminal conduct, and the particulars of the current offences. It considered the potential for rehabilitation and the impact of the intensive supervision order in preventing reoffending. In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the lapse of time since the offences were committed and the respondent's efforts towards rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, taking into account the respondent's personal circumstances and the broader interests of justice.

The court dismissed the Crown's appeal, affirming the original sentence. The decision underscored the importance of individualised sentencing that considers both punitive and rehabilitative objectives, reflecting the specific facts and context of each case.

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.