R v Watt

Case [1988] HCA 58 15 November 1988

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wilson, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ.

THE QUEEN v. WATT

(1988) 165 CLR 474

15 November 1988

Criminal Law (N.S.W.)

Criminal Law (N.S.W.)—Sentence—Remission—Non-parole period—Statutory power to disallow remissions wholly or partly—Expression of government will—Whether inappropriate for sentencing judge to exercise discretionary power—Regard to nature of offence and antecedent character of person convicted—Court not to impose limitations not contained in grant of power—Probation and Parole Act 1983 (N.S.W.), s. 21A.

Decisions

WILSON, DAWSON, TOOHEY AND GAUDRON JJ. These applications for special leave to appeal raise questions as to the operation of parole provisions of the Probation and Parole Act 1983 (N.S.W.) ("the Act").

2. On 8 August 1986, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales before Maxwell PJ., Raymond Leslie Watt, who is the respondent to the applications, was sentenced on three charges to which he had pleaded guilty. On a charge of larceny of a motorcycle he was sentenced to two years penal servitude. On a charge of having in his possession a shortened firearm he received a prison sentence of one year, to be served concurrently with the first sentence. On a charge of malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm he was sentenced to penal servitude for seventeen years, cumulative upon the term of two years imposed in respect of the first charge. In all then he received a prison sentence of nineteen years, to date from 19 November 1984. His Honour specified a non-parole period of ten years, to date from 19 November 1984, and at the conclusion of his remarks on sentence he said:

"I direct that the prisoner is not entitled to the remissions prescribed by reg 18 made under the Probation and Parole Act 1983. I make this order because it appears to me that it is desirable by reason of the nature of the offences."

3. His Honour's direction was given pursuant to a power conferred by s.21A of the Act. That section reads:

21A. (1) Where a person - (a) was convicted before, or is convicted on
or after, the day on which this section commences; and

(b) is sentenced on or after that day by a court,

the court may, upon sentencing the person, order that the person shall not be entitled to any remissions, or to any remissions granted in such circumstances as the court may specify, in so far as those remissions would, but for the order, reduce the term of a non-parole period specified in relation to the sentence. (2) A court shall not make an order under subsection (1) unless it appears to the court that the making of the order is desirable by reason of the nature of the offence or the antecedent character of the person convicted. (3) Where a court makes an order under ubsection (1), the court shall state the reasons for the order."

4. Before examining the operation of s.21A and other relevant provisions of the Act, it is advisable to carry through…

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 Watt

Details

AGLC: R v Watt [1988] HCA 58
Case: [1988] HCA 58
Decision Date: 15 November 1988

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of R v Watt, a case concerning the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial. The appellant, Watt, had been convicted of a number of offences, and his appeal to the High Court raised questions about the proper application of the rules of evidence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether certain evidence, obtained through a search of the appellant's property, had been lawfully obtained and, consequently, whether it was admissible in the trial. This involved an examination of the relevant provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and the common law principles governing search warrants and the seizure of evidence.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the statutory requirements for the issuance and execution of search warrants. It was held that the warrant in question was invalid because it did not sufficiently particularise the items to be seized, thereby failing to meet the statutory standard. Consequently, the evidence obtained pursuant to that invalid warrant was deemed inadmissible. The Court affirmed the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of statutory requirements, particularly those relating to search and seizure, may be excluded if its admission would be an affront to the proper administration of justice.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders