R -v- ROWORTH [2003] WASCA 120
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 120 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:212/2002 | 1 MAY 2003 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MCKECHNIE J PULLIN J | 13/06/03 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Total of sentences increased from 91/2 years to 121/2 years | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN SHAWN MEECHAM ROWORTH |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Series of armed robberies and stealing motor vehicles Crown appeal Totality principle Whether sentences manifestly inadequate |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), ss 371A, 378(2), 392 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), ss 60, 61 |
Case References: | Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Pop v The Queen [2000] WASCA 283; (2000) 116 A Crim R 398 R v Wright [2003] WASCA 56 Robinson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980587; 9 October 1998 Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998 Valentine v The Queen [2003] WASCA 7 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 McKenna v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 455 Mulligan v The Queen [2002] WASCA 5 R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159 Woods v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 341 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- ROWORTH [2003] WASCA 120 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MCKECHNIE J
PULLIN J
- Appellant
AND
SHAWN MEECHAM ROWORTH
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Series of armed robberies and stealing motor vehicles - Crown appeal - Totality principle - Whether sentences manifestly inadequate
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), ss 371A, 378(2), 392
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), ss 60, 61
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Total of sentences increased from 91/2 years to 121/2 years
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D Dempster
Respondent : Ms J T Fisher
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Justine Fisher
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pop v The Queen [2000] WASCA 283; (2000) 116 A Crim R 398
R v Wright [2003] WASCA 56
Robinson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980587; 9 October 1998
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998
Valentine v The Queen [2003] WASCA 7
Case(s) also cited:
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
McKenna v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 455
Mulligan v The Queen [2002] WASCA 5
R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159
Woods v The…
Continue reading R v Roworth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Roworth [2003] WASCA 120
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 120
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Roworth, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery, stealing motor vehicles, and related offences. The Crown appealed the sentences imposed by the lower court, arguing that they were manifestly inadequate in light of the seriousness of the crimes committed. The appeal was heard in the higher court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentences were appropriately reflective of the crimes and the need for deterrence and denunciation.
The court was required to consider the totality principle in sentencing, which involves assessing the overall punishment for multiple offences committed as part of a single criminal enterprise. The Crown argued that the cumulative effect of the sentences was too lenient, given the appellant's persistent and violent criminal behaviour. The defence maintained that the original sentences were fair and just, taking into account factors such as the appellant's age and the prospect of rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these considerations against the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the relevant legal principles, the court found that the sentences were indeed inadequate. It concluded that the total punishment did not adequately reflect the gravity of the appellant's criminal conduct and the need to deter similar offences in the future. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentences were increased. The final order of the court was to increase the total sentence from nine and a half years to twelve and a half years.
The court was required to consider the totality principle in sentencing, which involves assessing the overall punishment for multiple offences committed as part of a single criminal enterprise. The Crown argued that the cumulative effect of the sentences was too lenient, given the appellant's persistent and violent criminal behaviour. The defence maintained that the original sentences were fair and just, taking into account factors such as the appellant's age and the prospect of rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these considerations against the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the relevant legal principles, the court found that the sentences were indeed inadequate. It concluded that the total punishment did not adequately reflect the gravity of the appellant's criminal conduct and the need to deter similar offences in the future. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentences were increased. The final order of the court was to increase the total sentence from nine and a half years to twelve and a half years.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Total of sentences increased from 91/2 years to 121/2 years
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.