RUTTER -v- BOARD [2012] WASC 488
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 488 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1124/2011 | 8 AUGUST 2012 | |
| Coram: | EM HEENAN J | 11/12/12 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Applicant
AND
MARIA BOARD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE M PONTIFEX
File No : BS 1553 of 2011, BS 1554 of 2011
Catchwords:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Disorderly conduct and obstructing police - Pleas of guilty - 'Global fine' irregular - Fine of $2,000 - Not excessive
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
(Page 2)
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : Ms M J Woo
Solicitors:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Brown v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 111; (2011) 207 A Crim R 533
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Fakie v Shelverton [2000] WASCA 177; (2000) 115 A Crim R 177
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Isak v Garbellini [2006] WASC 50
Johnson v Ball [2006] WASC 216
Lowndes v…
Continue reading Rutter v Board
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- RUTTER -v- BOARD [2012] WASC 488
- Case
- [2012] WASC 488
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Rutter v Board was an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant following pleas of guilty to charges of disorderly conduct and obstructing police. The applicant argued that the 'global fine' imposed was irregular, and that the fine of $2,000 was excessive. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's arguments regarding the irregularity of the fine and its excessiveness were valid, and whether leave to appeal should be granted.
The court considered the arguments presented by the applicant and found that the imposition of the 'global fine' was not irregular. The court found that the fine of $2,000 was not excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the applicant's criminal history. The court noted that the fine was within the maximum penalty for the offences, and that the applicant had been given an opportunity to address the court on the matter of sentencing. The court also found that the applicant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences, was a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.
Based on the above findings, the court refused the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court found that there were no grounds for appeal, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The court noted that the applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges, and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter the applicant and others from engaging in similar conduct.
No further orders were made by the court. The decision of the court is final, and the applicant is not able to appeal further. The court's decision provides guidance to practitioners on the approach to be taken in cases involving applications for leave to appeal against sentence, and the factors to be considered in determining whether leave should be granted.
The court considered the arguments presented by the applicant and found that the imposition of the 'global fine' was not irregular. The court found that the fine of $2,000 was not excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the applicant's criminal history. The court noted that the fine was within the maximum penalty for the offences, and that the applicant had been given an opportunity to address the court on the matter of sentencing. The court also found that the applicant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences, was a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.
Based on the above findings, the court refused the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court found that there were no grounds for appeal, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The court noted that the applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges, and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter the applicant and others from engaging in similar conduct.
No further orders were made by the court. The decision of the court is final, and the applicant is not able to appeal further. The court's decision provides guidance to practitioners on the approach to be taken in cases involving applications for leave to appeal against sentence, and the factors to be considered in determining whether leave should be granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
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.