RANKINS -v- BEAMAN [2000] WASCA 269

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 269
Case No:	SJA:1088/2000	Heard:	6 SEPTEMBER 2000
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	21/09/00
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	TROY BENJAMIN RANKINS MICHELLE ANN BEAMAN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Burglary Whether sentence of imprisonment to be served immediately Only disposition open Firming up of sentences for offence Principles to be applied
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 401(2) Sentencing Act 1995, s 6(4), s 39 s 62, s 67, s 76(2)
Case References:	Cheshire v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; BC8900866; 7 November 1989 Fisher v R [1999] WASCA 122 Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 Pezzino (1997) 92 A Crim R 135 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : RANKINS -v- BEAMAN [2000] WASCA 269 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 6 SEPTEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1088 of 2000 BETWEEN : TROY BENJAMIN RANKINS

Appellant

AND

MICHELLE ANN BEAMAN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Burglary - Whether sentence of imprisonment to be served immediately - Only disposition open - Firming up of sentences for offence - Principles to be applied

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 401(2)

Sentencing Act 1995, s 6(4), s 39 s 62, s 67, s 76(2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Ms A C Johnson

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Cheshire v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; BC8900866; 7 November 1989
Fisher v R [1999] WASCA 122
Heferen v R [1999] WASCA 81
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007
Pezzino (1997) 92 A Crim R 135
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394

Case(s) also cited:

R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions, Northam with the offence of burglary: Criminal Code, s 401(2). He appeared before a Magistrate in the Court of Petty Sessions at Northam on 10 April 2000 and faced in addition to the charge of burglary charges of driving a motor vehicle whilst legally disentitled to hold a licence and giving to a member of the police force a false name. To all offences he pleaded guilty. On the driving charge he was fined $400 with disqualification from holding a licence for 9 months and on the charge of giving a false name he was fined $150.

2 In relation to the charge of burglary the facts put before the learned Magistrate were as follows:

"In relation to the burglary and committal offence,…

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 Rankins v Beaman

Details

AGLC: Rankins v Beaman [2000] WASCA 269
Case: [2000] WASCA 269
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rankins, the appellant, was convicted of the offence of burglary and sentenced to imprisonment. The issue before the court was whether the sentence of imprisonment should be served immediately or if there were other options available. The court was required to decide on the appropriate principles to apply when considering the firmness of the sentences for the offence. The case involved a dispute regarding the sentencing of the appellant for the crime of burglary. The appellant argued that the sentence of imprisonment should not be served immediately and that there were other options available. The court considered the principles that should be applied when determining the firmness of the sentences for the offence. In its decision, the court found that the only disposition open was for the appellant to serve the sentence of imprisonment immediately. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court's decision was based on the principles that should be applied when considering the firmness of sentences for the offence, and it found that the appellant's argument did not provide a viable alternative to serving the sentence of imprisonment immediately.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.