Legal Research
Cases
R v Vletter

R v Vletter

Case [2004] WASCA 96 14 May 2004

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Breach of Contract

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R -v- VLETTER [2004] WASCA 96

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
WHEELER J
MCKECHNIE J

HEARD: 5 MARCH 2004

DELIVERED : 14 MAY 2004

FILE NO/S: CCA 187 of 2003

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND
BRIAN VLETTER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram   :VIOL DCJ
File Number             :  IND 1170A of 2002

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Aggravated burglary on commercial premises - Need for general deterrence - Suspension of sentence - Breach of previous order for suspension of sentence

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 32

Result:

Appeal allowed
Respondent re-sentenced

Category: A

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):

Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509
Dinsdale v The Queen (2002) CLR 321
Fraser v The Queen [2003] WASCA 99
Harris v The Queen (1954) 90 CLR 652
Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61; [2003] 27 WAR 330
Kovac v The Queen (1977) 15 ALR 637
R v Petersen [1984] WAR 329
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MALCOLM CJ: This is a Crown appeal against sentence. The facts have been outlined in the reasons to be published by McKechnie J. The principles applicable to such an appeal under 688(2)(d) of the Criminal Code are well‑settled. In R v Petersen [1984] WAR 329 at 330, they were said by Burt CJ to be identical to those stated by Brennan, Deane and Gallop JJ in R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 at 387 – 388. After referring to Harris v The Queen (1954) 90 CLR 652; Kovac v The Queen (1977) 15 ALR 637 and Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509 at 519 – 520 per Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ and stating the general principles upon which an appellate court will interfere with a sentence imposed, their Honours said in relation to a Crown appeal specifically:
"Although an error affecting the sentence must appear before the appellate court will intervene in an appeal either by the Crown or by a defendant, a Crown appeal raises considerations which are not present in an appeal by a defendant seeking a reduction in his sentence. Crown appeals have been described as cutting across 'time‑honoured concepts of criminal administration' (per Barwick CJ, Peel v The Queen (1971) 125 CLR 447 at 452). A Crown appeal puts in jeopardy 'the vested interests that a man has to the freedom which is his, subject to the sentence of the primary tribunal' (per Isaacs J, Whittaker v The King at 248). The freedom beyond the sentence imposed is, for the second time, in jeopardy on a Crown appeal against sentence. It was first in jeopardy before the sentencing Court."
As McKechnie…

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 Vletter

Details

AGLC: R v Vletter [2004] WASCA 96
Case: [2004] WASCA 96
Decision Date: 14 MAY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vletter, the defendant was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria for committing aggravated burglary on a commercial premises. The defendant had unlawfully entered a commercial building with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely theft. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria on the grounds of the sentence imposed by the County Court. The defendant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the court should have taken into account his previous good character and lack of criminal history.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the court had failed to properly consider the need for general deterrence and the defendant's previous good character. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence was appropriate given the defendant's breach of a previous order for the suspension of a sentence. The prosecution submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

In its decision, the court found that the sentence imposed by the County Court was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the County Court was entitled to take into account the need for general deterrence and the seriousness of the offence when imposing sentence. The court also found that the County Court had properly considered the defendant's previous good character and lack of criminal history. The court further held that the breach of a previous order for the suspension of a sentence did not necessarily mean that the sentence imposed was inappropriate. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the County Court was upheld. The court found that the County Court had properly exercised its discretion in imposing sentence and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court also found that the County Court had properly considered all relevant factors when imposing sentence, including the need for general deterrence and the defendant's previous good character.

Orders