SCHAMOTTA -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 262
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 262 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:67/2002 | 5 SEPTEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J WHEELER J BURCHETT AUJ | 20/09/02 | |
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed in part; Disqualification for 10 years set aside, and 5 years substituted | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ADAM PHILLIP SCHAMOTTA THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Disqualification from holding a licence Firearms licences Grounds of disqualification Principles affecting length of disqualification |
Legislation: | Firearms Act 1973, s 27 (repealed) Sentencing Act 1995, s 102 and s 106 |
Case References: | Coumbe v Whittaker [1999] WASCA 151 Creed v Dudley [1984] WAR 344 Denton v Murdock [1995] WASC 1063 Horsman v Bishop [2000] WASCA 316 Re Cockram (SM); Ex parte Williamson, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940673; 23 September 1994 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Stackhouse v Curulli [1992] WASC 1009 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : SCHAMOTTA -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 262 CORAM : MURRAY J
- WHEELER J
BURCHETT AUJ
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Disqualification from holding a licence - Firearms licences - Grounds of disqualification - Principles affecting length of disqualification
Legislation:
Firearms Act 1973, s 27 (repealed)
Sentencing Act 1995, s 102 and s 106
Result:
Appeal allowed in part; Disqualification for 10 years set aside, and 5 years
substituted
(Page 2)
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr J M Malcolm
Respondent : Mr K M Tavener
Solicitors:
Appellant : Jeremy Malcolm
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Coumbe v Whittaker [1999] WASCA 151
Creed v Dudley [1984] WAR 344
Denton v Murdock [1995] WASC 1063
Horsman v Bishop [2000] WASCA 316
Re Cockram (SM); Ex parte Williamson, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940673; 23 September 1994
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Stackhouse v Curulli [1992] WASC 1009
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465
Case(s) also cited:
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
(Page 3)
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant is a young man aged 24 who has committed a number of offences involving dishonesty, particularly fraud, over the past five years. On 22 March 2002, he pleaded guilty in the District Court to four charges of obtaining, or attempting to obtain, money from banks by fraud and a charge of stealing as a servant. Pursuant to s 32 of the Sentencing Act 1995, he also pleaded guilty to seven charges of wilful…
Continue reading Schamotta v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Schamotta v The Queen [2002] WASCA 262
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 262
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Schamotta v The Queen involved an appeal by the defendant against his sentence, particularly the length of disqualification from holding a licence for firearms. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant had been convicted of an offence involving firearms and sentenced to imprisonment, along with a disqualification from holding a firearms licence for 10 years. He challenged the length of the disqualification period, arguing it was excessive and disproportionate to his offence.
The legal issues before the court were whether the 10-year disqualification period was appropriate and, if not, what the appropriate length should be. The court needed to consider the principles governing the imposition of such disqualifications and whether the 10-year period was justified under the circumstances. The appellant argued that the disqualification should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability, while the Crown contended that the lengthy disqualification was necessary for public safety.
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and previous case law to determine the appropriate principles governing the length of disqualification periods. It found that the 10-year disqualification was excessive and disproportionate to the appellant's offence. The court emphasised the need for proportionality in sentencing and considered the appellant's personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offence. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that a 5-year disqualification period was more appropriate. The appeal was allowed in part, and the 10-year disqualification was set aside, with a 5-year disqualification substituted in its place.
The legal issues before the court were whether the 10-year disqualification period was appropriate and, if not, what the appropriate length should be. The court needed to consider the principles governing the imposition of such disqualifications and whether the 10-year period was justified under the circumstances. The appellant argued that the disqualification should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability, while the Crown contended that the lengthy disqualification was necessary for public safety.
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and previous case law to determine the appropriate principles governing the length of disqualification periods. It found that the 10-year disqualification was excessive and disproportionate to the appellant's offence. The court emphasised the need for proportionality in sentencing and considered the appellant's personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offence. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that a 5-year disqualification period was more appropriate. The appeal was allowed in part, and the 10-year disqualification was set aside, with a 5-year disqualification substituted in its place.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed in part; Disqualification for 10 years set aside, and 5 years
substituted
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.