RANKINS -v- SMITH & ORS [2001] WASCA 367
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 367 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1107/2001 | 22 OCTOBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | SCOTT J | 26/11/01 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed in part | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TROY BENJAMIN RANKINS BRADLEY SMITH LEEANN BURGOYNE MICHELLE ANN BEAMAN SCOTT ROBERT WATSON STEPHEN SLOANE BERNARD ANTHONY McGUIRE PHILIP GEORGE STEVENSON ARRON MARK WALSH |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Series of offences Appellant never previously imprisoned No parole order made Earlier suspended term of imprisonment not dealt with Parole order fixed and further concurrent term of imprisonment imposed Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Sentencing Act 1995 s 80(1)(b) |
Case References: | Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Asciak v Conchie [2001] WASCA 88 Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA (Miller J); Library No 990001; 13 January 1999 Cardillo v Taylor [1999] WASCA 166 Cunningham v Walsh & Ors [2000] WASCA 201 Dragic v Burrows [2000] WASCA 385 Henning (2000) 112 A Crim R 34 Hing Loh v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940508; 2 June 1994 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Howell v The Queen (1989) 2 WAR 60 Johnson v Hayter [2001] WASCA 118 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Marshall v Spent (2000) 111 A Crim R 572 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Wongawol (1998) 101 A Crim R 350 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
BRADLEY SMITH
First Respondent
LEEANN BURGOYNE
Second Respondent
MICHELLE ANN BEAMAN
Third Respondent
SCOTT ROBERT WATSON
Fourth Respondent
STEPHEN SLOANE
Fifth Respondent
BERNARD ANTHONY McGUIRE
Sixth Respondent
PHILIP GEORGE STEVENSON
Seventh Respondent
ARRON MARK WALSH
Eighth Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Series of offences - Appellant never previously imprisoned - No parole order made - Earlier suspended term of imprisonment not dealt with - Parole order fixed and further concurrent term of imprisonment imposed - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Sentencing Act 1995 s 80(1)(b)
Result:
Appeal allowed in part
Category: B
(Page 3)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich
First Respondent : Ms L Tovey
Second Respondent : Ms L Tovey
Third Respondent : Ms L Tovey
Fourth Respondent : Ms L Tovey
Fifth Respondent : Ms L Tovey
Sixth Respondent : Ms L Tovey
Seventh Respondent : Ms L Tovey
Eighth Respondent : Ms L Tovey
Solicitors:
Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service
First Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Second Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Third Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Fourth Respondent : State Director of Public…
Continue reading Rankins v Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Rankins v Smith [2001] WASCA 367
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 367
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Rankins v Smith involved the appellant, Rankins, who was convicted of a series of offences and subsequently sentenced by the court. Rankins had no prior history of imprisonment and was facing sentencing for the first time. The court imposed a fixed term of imprisonment accompanied by a parole order, as well as a further concurrent term of imprisonment. The decision to impose these sentences was contested, as the earlier suspended term of imprisonment was not addressed, and no parole order had been made in respect of it. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances and the appellant's lack of prior criminal history.
The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in light of the appellant's lack of previous imprisonment and the manner in which the sentences were structured. The legal questions revolved around the appropriateness of the imposition of a parole order without addressing the earlier suspended sentence and whether the concurrent terms were justified. The court had to assess whether the sentence met the objectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, taking into account the appellant's background and the nature of the offences committed.
In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significance of the appellant's lack of prior criminal history and the need for a sentence that would effectively address the offending without unduly punishing the appellant. The court found that the imposition of the parole order without addressing the earlier suspended term was problematic, as it created an inconsistency in the sentencing approach. Furthermore, the court held that the concurrent terms of imprisonment were not warranted, given the appellant's circumstances. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence did not appropriately balance the sentencing objectives, and allowed the appeal in part to rectify the issues identified.
The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in light of the appellant's lack of previous imprisonment and the manner in which the sentences were structured. The legal questions revolved around the appropriateness of the imposition of a parole order without addressing the earlier suspended sentence and whether the concurrent terms were justified. The court had to assess whether the sentence met the objectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, taking into account the appellant's background and the nature of the offences committed.
In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significance of the appellant's lack of prior criminal history and the need for a sentence that would effectively address the offending without unduly punishing the appellant. The court found that the imposition of the parole order without addressing the earlier suspended term was problematic, as it created an inconsistency in the sentencing approach. Furthermore, the court held that the concurrent terms of imprisonment were not warranted, given the appellant's circumstances. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence did not appropriately balance the sentencing objectives, and allowed the appeal in part to rectify the issues identified.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed in part
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.