R v Wiltshire - [1999] WASCA 113

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R -v- WILTSHIRE [1999] WASCA 113

CORAM: IPP J
ANDERSON J
STEYTLER J

HEARD: 15 JUNE 1999

DELIVERED : 4 AUGUST 1999

FILE NO/S: CCA 39 of 1999

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND
TIMOTHY KEITH WILTSHIRE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Offences relating to the administration of justice - Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - Interfering with a dead body - Appeal against sentence - Whether offence so serious as to warrant custodial sentence - Unusual personal circumstances of offender - Sentence of community service order upheld - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code s 135

Sentencing Act s 76(3)(a)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S E Stone & Ms A L Forrester
Respondent: Mr D P A Moen

Solicitors:

Appellant: Acting State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Andree Horrigan

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

R v Field, Field and Wheater [1965] 1 QB 402
R v Sharpe and Stringer [1937] 27 Cr App R 122
Reg v Withers [1975] AC 842

Case(s) also cited:

Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171
Dempsey v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7623; 24 April 1989
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606
Morex Meat Australia Pty Ltd and Doube v R (1995) 78 A Crim R 269
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Legg, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980305; 9 April 1998
Radenkovic (1990) 51 A Crim R 451
Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386

IPP J: This is a Crown appeal against sentence. The respondent pleaded guilty to two offences, namely conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and interfering with a dead human body. The respondent committed the offences concerned while on parole for offences relating to the sale and possession of heroin. He was initially sentenced by the learned sentencing Judge to two concurrent terms of 18 months' imprisonment in respect of the two offences. Her Honour suspended each of the sentences for a period of two years. Section 76(3)(a) of the Sentencing Act, however, precluded the imposition of a suspended sentence in circumstances where the relevant offence was committed at a time when the offender was subject to an early release order, which includes a parole order. When her Honour realised this she recalled the sentences she had imposed on the respondent and re‑sentenced him by requiring him to complete 100 hours of community service.
The Crown appeals against this sentence principally on the ground that the offence of perverting the course of justice was so serious that it required a sentence of immediate custodial imprisonment.
In April 1988 the respondent resided with his brother, Maxwell Wiltshire, in Northstead Street, Scarborough. In the early evening of Monday 13 April 1998 a friend of the respondent's one Paul Graham Dowding, now deceased, visited the respondent at his home in Northstead Street. At some stage on 13 April, to the…

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 Wiltshire

Details

AGLC: R v Wiltshire [1999] WASCA 113
Case: [1999] WASCA 113
Decision Date: 4 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wiltshire was heard in the relevant court where the defendant, Wiltshire, was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and interfering with a dead body. Wiltshire and his accomplices were found to have tampered with evidence and interfered with a deceased individual's body in an attempt to conceal their criminal activities. The appeal against Wiltshire's sentence was heard, focusing on whether his crime was sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence, or if his unusual personal circumstances warranted a different approach.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Wiltshire, given his involvement in serious criminal activities, while also considering his personal circumstances. The central issue was whether the nature of the offence and the extent of Wiltshire's involvement warranted a custodial sentence or if a community service order would be more suitable. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the crime with Wiltshire's personal circumstances, which included a lack of prior criminal history and potential mitigating factors.

The court found that the offence was indeed serious, as it involved tampering with evidence and interfering with a deceased individual's body. However, the court also took into account Wiltshire's personal circumstances, which included his lack of prior criminal history and other mitigating factors. The court concluded that a community service order was an appropriate sentence, given the unique facts of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of community service was upheld.

The court did not order any further action regarding the sentence, maintaining that the original sentence of community service was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The decision emphasised the importance of considering both the nature of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders