R v Ward

Case [1999] WASCA 157


R -v- WARD [1999] WASCA 157



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[1999] WASCA 157
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:121/19992 AUGUST 1999
Coram:MALCOLM CJ
IPP J
WHITE J
2/08/99
5Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Crown appeal allowed
PDF Version
Parties:THE QUEEN
BRIAN NOEL WARD

Catchwords:

Criminal law
Sentencing
Crown appeal against concurrent sentences of 12 months for two counts of aggravated burglary
Offences in upper range of seriousness involving separate home invasions in company and assaults
Need to firm up sentences
Parliament increased maximum penalties
Sentences ordered to be served cumulatively

Legislation:

Nil

Case References:

Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81
Nguyen v R; Tran v R [1999] WASCA 54
Pezzino v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 135
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
Ruane v R (1979) 1 A Crim R 284
Shaw v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 343
Van Thong Dao v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999

Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- WARD [1999] WASCA 157 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
    IPP J
    WHITE J
HEARD : 2 AUGUST 1999 DELIVERED : 2 AUGUST 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 121 of 1999 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
    Appellant

    AND

    BRIAN NOEL WARD
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Crown appeal against concurrent sentences of 12 months for two counts of aggravated burglary - Offences in upper range of seriousness involving separate home invasions in company and assaults - Need to firm up sentences - Parliament increased maximum penalties - Sentences ordered to be served cumulatively




Legislation:

Nil




Result:


    Crown appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms C R Campbell
    Respondent : Mr R W Richardson


Solicitors:

    Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
    Respondent : Aboriginal Legal Service


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

Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81
Nguyen v R; Tran v R [1999] WASCA 54
Pezzino v R (1997) 92 A Crim R 135
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
Ruane v R (1979) 1 A Crim R 284
Shaw v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 343
Van Thong Dao v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999

Case(s) also cited:



Nil

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: This is a Crown appeal. The principles applicable to Crown appeals are set out in R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 at 179-180 per Malcolm CJ. They do not need to be repeated.

2 On 19 May 1999 the respondent was convicted on his plea of guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary, the subject of counts on two separate indictments. Count 1 concerned an offence which was committed on 28 June 1997 at Kewdale where in the place of Kathleen Naomi…

Continue reading R v Ward

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ward [1999] WASCA 157
Case
[1999] WASCA 157
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ward, the appellant, Ward, was convicted of two counts of aggravated burglary under section 94AA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). These offences involved separate home invasions accompanied by physical assaults, leading to the imposition of concurrent sentences of 12 months imprisonment for each count by the trial judge. The Crown appealed the sentences, arguing that they were inadequate and should be increased and ordered to run consecutively to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in imposing sentences that were too lenient and did not reflect the gravity of the offences. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences should be firmed up and whether they should be served consecutively, taking into account the increased maximum penalties for aggravated burglary introduced by Parliament.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the increased penalties introduced by the Parliament for aggravated burglary. It found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the upper range of seriousness of the offences and that the sentences did not appropriately reflect the cumulative impact of the home invasions and assaults. The court concluded that the sentences should be increased and ordered to run consecutively, aligning with the legislative intent to impose stricter penalties for such serious offences. The Crown's appeal was allowed, and the sentences were set to be served cumulatively.

Orders

Orders of the court

Crown appeal allowed

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.