REID -v- QUIGG [2007] WASC 35

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 35
Case No:	SJA:1106/2006	Heard:	29 JANUARY 2007
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	20/02/07
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DANIEL LAWRENCE REID PAUL QUIGG
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Offences of burglary and unlawful wounding Cancellation of parole allowed under earlier parole term Ambiguity as to length of unexpired balance of earlier term Whether Magistrate erred in application of totality principle Whether new sentence of imprisonment imposed should be concurrent with or cumulative upon existing term Application of totality principle Appeal allowed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(d) Criminal Code (WA), s 301(1), s 401(1)(b), s 401(2)(b) Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 7(3) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 88
Case References:	Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McLean v The Queen [1999] WASCA 209 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : REID -v- QUIGG [2007] WASC 35 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 29 JANUARY 2007 DELIVERED : 21 FEBRUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1106 of 2006 BETWEEN : DANIEL LAWRENCE REID

Appellant

AND

PAUL QUIGG

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES' COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P G MALONE

File No : PE 16271 of 2005, PE 16272 of 2005, PE 16273 of 2005, PE 16274 of 2005

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Offences of burglary and unlawful wounding - Cancellation of parole allowed under earlier parole term - Ambiguity as to length of unexpired balance of earlier term - Whether Magistrate erred in application of totality principle - Whether new sentence of imprisonment imposed should be concurrent with or cumulative upon existing term - Application of totality principle - Appeal allowed - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(d)

Criminal Code (WA), s 301(1), s 401(1)(b), s 401(2)(b)
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 7(3)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 88

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms K Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
McLean v The Queen [1999] WASCA 209
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295

(Page 3)

HASLUCK J

Introduction

1 The appellant, Daniel Lawrence Reid, has appealed against a sentence imposed upon him pursuant to a plea of guilty in the Magistrates' Court at Perth.

2 The question raised by the appeal is whether the learned Magistrate erred in his assessment of certain matters bearing upon his decision to…

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 Reid v Quigg

Details

AGLC: Reid v Quigg [2007] WASC 35
Case: [2007] WASC 35
Decision Date: 21 FEBRUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Reid v Quigg arose before the court, where the appellant was convicted of offences of burglary and unlawful wounding, and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. The dispute involved the legality of the decision to cancel the appellant's parole under the terms of an earlier parole order, and whether the magistrate had erred in applying the totality principle in determining the new sentence. The case was heard and determined in the court of appeal.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether there was ambiguity in the length of the unexpired balance of the earlier parole term, and if so, whether the magistrate had correctly applied the totality principle in determining the new sentence. The court was required to decide whether the new sentence of imprisonment should be concurrent with or cumulative upon the existing term. This involved an analysis of the magistrate's consideration of the totality principle, which takes into account the cumulative effect of all sentences imposed on an offender.

The court held that the magistrate had indeed erred in applying the totality principle, finding ambiguity in the length of the unexpired balance of the earlier parole term. The court held that the new sentence of imprisonment should be concurrent with the existing term, rather than cumulative. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The appeal was thus allowed, turning on the specific facts of the case.

No additional orders were made beyond allowing the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.