ROBERTS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 237
| (2003) 28 WAR 381 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 237 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:8/2003 | 11 SEPTEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ STEYTLER J PARKER J | 3/10/03 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | FRANCIS GERALD ROBERTS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Wilful murder Unprovoked frenzied killing of stranger 98 stab wounds, a number of which would each have been fatal Whether imposition of a sentence of strict security life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years constituted an error of law and a sentence of life imprisonment should have been imposed Principles to be applied |
Legislation: | Acts Amendment (Abolition of Capital Punishment) Act 1984 (WA) Acts Amendment (Strict Security Life Imprisonment) Act 1980 (WA) Criminal Code (WA), s 282 Criminal Law Amendment Act 1994 (WA) Offenders Community Corrections Act 1963 (WA), s 40(2)(c), s 40(2)(d) Offenders Probation and Parole Act 1963 (WA) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 90(2), s 91(1) |
Case References: | Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44 Griffin v The Queen [2001] WASCA 11. , Hoare v The Queen (No 2), unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6240; 10 April 1986 Hoare v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6138; 13 December 1985 Jackson v The Queen [1990] WAR 105 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 8 CA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 Monaghan v The Queen (1990) 3 WAR 466 R v Pearce, unreported; SCt of WA; No 92 of 1984 (Smith J); 15 February 1985 Williams v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 17 Mitchell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 333 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ROBERTS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 237 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- STEYTLER J
PARKER J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Wilful murder - Unprovoked frenzied killing of stranger - 98 stab wounds, a number of which would each have been fatal - Whether imposition of a sentence of strict security life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years constituted an error of law and a sentence of life imprisonment should have been imposed - Principles to be applied
Legislation:
Acts Amendment (Abolition of Capital Punishment) Act 1984 (WA)
Acts Amendment (Strict Security Life Imprisonment) Act 1980 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA), s 282
(Page 2)
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1994 (WA)
Offenders Community Corrections Act 1963 (WA), s 40(2)(c), s 40(2)(d)
Offenders Probation and Parole Act 1963 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 90(2), s 91(1)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr P G Giudice
Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart
Continue reading Roberts v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Roberts v The Queen [2003] WASCA 237
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 237
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the recent case of Roberts v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was tasked with considering the sentencing of the appellant, who had been convicted of the wilful murder of a stranger. The appellant had inflicted a total of 98 stab wounds on the victim, many of which were individually fatal. The primary issue before the court was whether the imposition of a sentence of strict security life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years constituted an error of law, and whether a sentence of life imprisonment should have been imposed instead. The court had to navigate the principles of sentencing for such a heinous crime and determine if the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appropriate sentence.
The court examined the nature of the crime and the severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim. The appellant's attack was unprovoked and frenzied, demonstrating a complete disregard for human life. The court acknowledged the trial judge's consideration of the gravity of the crime and the need for a sentence that reflected the heinousness of the act. The High Court then considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need for general deterrence and the protection of society, as well as the individual circumstances of the offender. The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately balanced these factors and found no error of law in the imposition of the sentence.
In reaching its decision, the court emphasised that the imposition of a sentence of strict security life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years was not an error of law. The court found that the trial judge had considered the relevant principles of sentencing and had imposed a sentence that was commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed and that the original sentence should stand. The court granted leave to appeal but ultimately found no merit in the appeal, affirming the original sentencing decision.
The court examined the nature of the crime and the severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim. The appellant's attack was unprovoked and frenzied, demonstrating a complete disregard for human life. The court acknowledged the trial judge's consideration of the gravity of the crime and the need for a sentence that reflected the heinousness of the act. The High Court then considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need for general deterrence and the protection of society, as well as the individual circumstances of the offender. The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately balanced these factors and found no error of law in the imposition of the sentence.
In reaching its decision, the court emphasised that the imposition of a sentence of strict security life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years was not an error of law. The court found that the trial judge had considered the relevant principles of sentencing and had imposed a sentence that was commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed and that the original sentence should stand. The court granted leave to appeal but ultimately found no merit in the appeal, affirming the original sentencing decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
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.