R -v- VLETTER [2004] WASCA 96 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 96 (S) | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:187/2003 | 5 MARCH 2004 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WHEELER J MCKECHNIE J | 14/05/04 | |
| 3/03/05 | |||
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Sentence corrected | ||
| C | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN BRIAN VLETTER |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Correction of sentence |
Legislation: | Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 37 |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- VLETTER [2004] WASCA 96 (S) CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WHEELER J
MCKECHNIE J
DECISION : 3 MARCH 2005 FILE NO/S : CCA 187 of 2003 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
- Appellant
AND
BRIAN VLETTER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Correction of sentence
Legislation:
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 37
Result:
Sentence corrected
(Page 2)
Category: C
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC & Mr D N Ryan
Respondent : Mr R D Young
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Gunning Young
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This was a Crown appeal which was allowed and the order for suspension of the sentences imposed by the trial Judge set aside and the orders of the sentencing Judge varied as set out in par [92] of the judgment. The judgment was delivered on 14 May 2004 when the respondent was at large. The solicitors for the respondent had been requested to arrange for the respondent to be present when the judgment was delivered. The respondent failed to attend. A bench warrant issued and the respondent was subsequently arrested on 1 November 2004 and placed into custody. At the appeal, the respondent's solicitors informed the Court that he had spent some 51 days in custody before being sentenced in the District Court on 5 March 2004. In calculating the new sentence to be imposed, it has come to the Court's attention that no credit was given for those days. Having received written submissions from both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the respondent pursuant to s 37 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), it appears that the sentence should be adjusted to take account of the period of 51 days in custody in respect of the offences for which he was sentenced in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
2 In the result, the Court orders that the sentence imposed be deemed to have commenced on 9 September 2004.
Details
- AGLC
- R v Vletter [2004] WASCA 96 (S)
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 96 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of the Queen v Vletter, the case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The dispute revolved around the sentencing of Vletter for criminal activities. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence handed down by the lower court was appropriate or required correction. The appeal was lodged on the grounds that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence and the offender.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive, thus requiring correction. The court needed to balance the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing with the need to ensure that the sentence is not disproportionate to the offence committed. The court also had to consider whether the sentence could be considered unjust or oppressive in light of the particular circumstances of the offender and the crime.
The High Court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing, noting that a sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the individual circumstances of the offender. The court held that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed, taking into account the offender's background and the specific circumstances of the case. As a result, the High Court ordered the sentence to be corrected to a more appropriate level, reflecting the principles of justice and proportionality.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive, thus requiring correction. The court needed to balance the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing with the need to ensure that the sentence is not disproportionate to the offence committed. The court also had to consider whether the sentence could be considered unjust or oppressive in light of the particular circumstances of the offender and the crime.
The High Court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing, noting that a sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the individual circumstances of the offender. The court held that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed, taking into account the offender's background and the specific circumstances of the case. As a result, the High Court ordered the sentence to be corrected to a more appropriate level, reflecting the principles of justice and proportionality.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentence corrected
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.