Legal Research
Cases
Rossiter v Francisty

Rossiter v Francisty

Case [2005] WASC 270

Appeal

Sentencing

Driving Under Suspension

Cumulative Sentences

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ROSSITER -v- FRANCISTY & ANOR [2005] WASC 270

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 270
Case No:	SJA:1094/2005	Heard:	11 NOVEMBER 2005
Coram:	MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	11/11/05
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Sentences made concurrent
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	LESLIE JAMES ROSSITER RENAT FRANCISTY AUBREY FULLMAN
Catchwords:	Road traffic, multiple offences of driving under suspension Table of sentences commonly imposed for driving while suspended Present sentences manifestly excessive
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ROSSITER -v- FRANCISTY & ANOR [2005] WASC 270 CORAM : MCKECHNIE J HEARD : 11 NOVEMBER 2005 DELIVERED : 11 NOVEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1094 of 2005 BETWEEN : LESLIE JAMES ROSSITER

Appellant

AND

RENAT FRANCISTY

First Respondent

AUBREY FULLMAN

Second Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No : SJA 1094 of 2005

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MR P HEANEY SM

Date : 11 March 2005

File No : JO 7323 of 2004, PE 15771 of 2005

For File No : SJA 1094 of 2005

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MR C ROBERTS SM

Date : 29 March 2005

File No : MI 1941 of 2005, MI 2369 of 2005

Catchwords:

Road traffic, multiple offences of driving under suspension - Table of sentences commonly imposed for driving while suspended - Present sentences manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Sentences made concurrent

(Page 3)

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Mr S M Murphy

Second Respondent : Mr S M Murphy

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : State Solicitor for the State of Western Australia

Second Respondent : State Solicitor for the State of Western Australia

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 4)

MCKECHNIE J

Assistance of the respondent

1 I should first make particular mention of the stance of the respondent who, at relatively short notice, has provided considerable assistance in enabling me to deal with the matter. The respondent does not oppose my hearing the applications together, including the appeal. This is the latest in a series of cases where the State Solicitor, or the DPP, at short notice, has been prepared to assist in the expedition of appropriate cases. This contribution to the administration of justice should be acknowledged.

2 This is an application for bail and also an application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal the series of sentences imposed upon the appellant on successive occasions, the net result being that the appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 14 months and 1 day.

3 The appellant requires an extension of time which is not opposed. The chronology, which I take substantially from the respondents' outline, is this: the appellant has a very bad driving record but has not, it would appear, committed driving offences from about…

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 Rossiter v Francisty

Details

AGLC: Rossiter v Francisty [2005] WASC 270
Case: [2005] WASC 270
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leslie James Rossiter appealed against the cumulative sentences imposed on him by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia for multiple offences of driving while suspended. The court heard the appeal on 11 November 2005. The appellant had accumulated a substantial driving record with multiple convictions for driving while suspended, unlicensed driving, and other related offences. The appellant's cumulative sentences resulted in a term of imprisonment of 14 months and 1 day. The legal issues before the court were whether the cumulative sentences were appropriate and whether the appellant was entitled to an extension of time and leave to appeal.

The court acknowledged the respondent's assistance in expediting the case and found that the appellant's cumulative sentences were excessive. The court considered the appellant's criminal history and the need for strong deterrence for persistent driving while suspended offences. The court noted that the appellant's last two sentences were made cumulative upon the earlier sentences, which was an error. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order that made the last two sentences cumulative, and ordered that they be served concurrently with the earlier sentences of 8 months' imprisonment. The court found that the appellant had already served the adjusted sentence and therefore did not need to grant bail.

In summary, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the order that made the last two sentences cumulative. The court ordered that the last two sentences be served concurrently with the earlier sentences of 8 months' imprisonment. The court found that the appellant had already served the adjusted sentence and did not need to grant bail.

Orders