ROUSE -v- WILSON [2008] WASC 66

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2008] WASC 66
Case No:	SJA:1097/2007	Heard:	28 MARCH 2008
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	8/05/08
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DAMIEN COLIN ROUSE KEVIN WILSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Appeal against sentences Stealing a motor vehicle Dangerous driving causing bodily harm Whether sentences should be served concurrently Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59B(3)(a)
Case References:	Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ROUSE -v- WILSON [2008] WASC 66 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 28 MARCH 2008 DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2008 FILE NO/S : SJA 1097 of 2007 BETWEEN : DAMIEN COLIN ROUSE

Appellant

AND

KEVIN WILSON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE W G TARR

File No : PE 42843 of 2007, PE 42844 of 2007, PE 42845 of 2007, PE 42846 of 2007

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Appeal against sentences - Stealing a motor vehicle - Dangerous driving causing bodily harm - Whether sentences should be served concurrently - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59B(3)(a)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr J G Nicholls

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610

(Page 3)

1 LE MIERE J: On 12 November 2007 the appellant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and 12 months' imprisonment for stealing a motor vehicle. The sentencing magistrate ordered that the sentences be served cumulatively. The appellant appeals against those sentences.

The offences

2 The offences were described by the prosecutor as follows:

At 2.30 pm Saturday 21 July 2007 the victim's wife parked his Ford Falcon station wagon in Beaufort Street, near Francis Street in Perth. The victim's wife and two children returned to where she parked the vehicle at 4.15 pm but the vehicle was gone. Walked to Perth Police Station, reported the vehicle stolen, contacted her husband to pick her up. The victim and his wife decided to drive around the area to see if they could find the vehicle. As they approach[ed] the intersection of Beaufort Street and Newcastle Street the victim observed his vehicle [being] driven by the accused at the traffic lights. The victim stopped his car, ran to the stolen vehicle. There [were] two other males whose identities were unknown in the vehicle. The victim reached into the car to turn off the keys in the ignition only to find there weren't any. He yelled at the accused to get out of the car. The accused placed his foot on the accelerator,…

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 Rouse v Wilson

Details

AGLC: Rouse v Wilson [2008] WASC 66
Case: [2008] WASC 66
Decision Date: 8 MAY 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rouse appeals against his sentences for stealing a motor vehicle and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, contending that the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were appropriate and whether they should have been ordered to run concurrently, rather than consecutively. The court assessed the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the offences, including the nature and gravity of the crimes, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court considered the individual and cumulative impact of the crimes on the victims and the community. It also examined the sentencing principles relevant to concurrent and consecutive sentencing. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the factors that justified ordering the sentences to run concurrently. The court held that the sentences should have reflected the need for proportionality and consistency with similar cases, taking into account the totality of the offending and the offender's circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

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.