RAFFERTY -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 312
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 312 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:65/2002 | 9 SEPTEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J ANDERSON J BURCHETT AUJ | 22/11/02 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Sentences backdated to 8 February 2002 | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN PAUL RAFFERTY THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Sentence Sentences imposed for a series of offences Whether error in mathematical approach to sentencing Cumulacy of sentences Totality principle Whether sufficient weight given to applicant's previous history and youth Discount for "fasttrack" pleas of guilty Backdating sentences for time spent in custody |
Legislation: | Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 51(1) Criminal Code, s 5, s 378, s 401(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Rules 2000, r 47 Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 24 Police Act 1892 (WA), s 54 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 31, s 32, s 33, s 33(2), s 33(3), s 87 |
Case References: | Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v White [2002] WASCA 112 Ratcliff v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980651; 3 November 1998 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Chad Johnson v The Queen [2002] WASCA 102 Downey v The Queen [2002] WASCA 59 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Brown (1982) 5 A Crim R 404 R v King [2000] WASCA 130 R v Yates [1985] VR 41 Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998 Vlek v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990153; 29 March 1999 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : RAFFERTY -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 312 CORAM : MURRAY J
- ANDERSON J
BURCHETT AUJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Sentence - Sentences imposed for a series of offences - Whether error in mathematical approach to sentencing - Cumulacy of sentences - Totality principle - Whether sufficient weight given to applicant's previous history and youth - Discount for "fasttrack" pleas of guilty - Backdating sentences for time spent in custody
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 51(1)
Criminal Code, s 5, s 378, s 401(1)(b)
Criminal Procedure Rules 2000, r 47
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 24
(Page 2)
Police Act 1892 (WA), s 54
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 31, s 32, s 33, s 33(2), s 33(3), s 87
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentences backdated to 8 February 2002
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms…
Continue reading Rafferty v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Rafferty v The Queen [2002] WASCA 312
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 312
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Rafferty was convicted of a series of criminal offences and the case came before the court to determine the appropriate sentence. The applicant, Rafferty, challenged the mathematical approach taken by the sentencing court in calculating the total sentence, arguing that it did not adequately consider the cumulative effect of the sentences and the totality principle. Rafferty also contended that insufficient weight was given to his previous criminal history and his youth at the time of the offences. Additionally, the applicant argued that a discount for his "fast-track" pleas of guilty was not adequately reflected in the final sentence. Furthermore, Rafferty sought to have his sentences backdated to the date he was first taken into custody.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing court had erred in its mathematical approach to calculating the total sentence, whether the cumulative effect of the sentences and the totality principle were adequately considered, whether sufficient weight was given to Rafferty's previous history and youth, whether the discount for his "fast-track" pleas of guilty was adequately reflected in the final sentence, and whether the sentences should be backdated to the date Rafferty was first taken into custody. The court had to determine whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances and whether any errors in the sentencing process warranted a reduction in the sentences.
The court found that the sentencing court had indeed erred in its mathematical approach to calculating the total sentence, as it had not adequately considered the cumulative effect of the sentences and the totality principle. The court also found that insufficient weight was given to Rafferty's previous criminal history and his youth at the time of the offences. The court further determined that the discount for Rafferty's "fast-track" pleas of guilty was not adequately reflected in the final sentence. As a result, the court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and ordered that the sentences be backdated to the date Rafferty was first taken into custody.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing court had erred in its mathematical approach to calculating the total sentence, whether the cumulative effect of the sentences and the totality principle were adequately considered, whether sufficient weight was given to Rafferty's previous history and youth, whether the discount for his "fast-track" pleas of guilty was adequately reflected in the final sentence, and whether the sentences should be backdated to the date Rafferty was first taken into custody. The court had to determine whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances and whether any errors in the sentencing process warranted a reduction in the sentences.
The court found that the sentencing court had indeed erred in its mathematical approach to calculating the total sentence, as it had not adequately considered the cumulative effect of the sentences and the totality principle. The court also found that insufficient weight was given to Rafferty's previous criminal history and his youth at the time of the offences. The court further determined that the discount for Rafferty's "fast-track" pleas of guilty was not adequately reflected in the final sentence. As a result, the court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and ordered that the sentences be backdated to the date Rafferty was first taken into custody.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentences backdated to 8 February 2002
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.