R -v- ROBERTS [2003] WASCA 203

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 203
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:31/2003	Heard:	18 JULY 2003
Coram:	MURRAY J TEMPLEMAN J WHEELER J	Delivered:	8/09/03
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applicant's appeal against sentence dismissed Respondent's application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN RICHARD JOHN ROBERTS
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Totality Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Sentencing Act, s 93 and s 94
Case References:	Hintz v The Queen [2002] WASCA 38 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Thomson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Atholwood v The Queen (1999) 109 A Crim R 465 Bellissimo v The Queen (1998) 84 A Crim R 465 Darwell v R (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Mada v The Queen [2003] WASCA 1 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- ROBERTS [2003] WASCA 203 CORAM : MURRAY J

TEMPLEMAN J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 18 JULY 2003 DELIVERED : 8 SEPTEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 31 of 2003

CCA 32 of 2003

BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Applicant

AND

RICHARD JOHN ROBERTS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Totality - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Sentencing Act, s 93 and s 94

Result:

Applicant's appeal against sentence dismissed

Respondent's application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D Dempster

Respondent : Mr J J Scudds

Solicitors:

Applicant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Porter Scudds

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

Hintz v The Queen [2002] WASCA 38
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Thomson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

Case(s) also cited:

Atholwood v The Queen (1999) 109 A Crim R 465
Bellissimo v The Queen (1998) 84 A Crim R 465
Darwell v R (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
Mada v The Queen [2003] WASCA 1
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: I agree with Wheeler J that in the particular circumstances of this case, both the Crown's appeal against sentence and the respondent's application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

2 I specifically accept that it is necessary, in considering the severity or inadequacy of those sentences, to have regard to the odd fact that, because of the operation of the Sentencing Act1995 (WA) and the Sentence Administration Act 1995 (WA), to impose the additional aggregate term of 2½ years imprisonment cumulatively upon the previous term of 8 years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility order applicable to the resulting term of 10½ years imprisonment, will result in the respondent serving exactly the same time before becoming eligible for 2 years parole as if the term of 2½ years had…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2003] WASCA 203
Case: [2003] WASCA 203
Decision Date: 8 SEPTEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Roberts, the applicant appealed against his sentence, and the respondent sought leave to appeal against the same sentence. The case was heard in the court of appeal where the applicant's appeal against the sentence was dismissed and the respondent's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also dismissed.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive, and whether the respondent's application for leave to appeal against the sentence should be granted. The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances and whether the totality principle was properly applied.

The court found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was not manifestly excessive and that the totality principle was properly applied. The court held that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the offender's culpability, and the need to deter the offender and others from committing similar offences. The court also found that the respondent's application for leave to appeal against the sentence should be dismissed as it did not raise a question of law of general public importance.

The court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the sentence and the respondent's application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applicant's appeal against sentence dismissed

Respondent's application for leave to appeal 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.