Shaw v Wilson
[2017] WASC 180
•28 JUNE 2017
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: SHAW -v- WILSON [2017] WASC 180
CORAM: MCGRATH J
HEARD: 28 JUNE 2017
DELIVERED : 28 JUNE 2017
FILE NO/S: SJA 1038 of 2017
BETWEEN: NINA SHAW
Appellant
AND
HARLEY WILSON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :MAGISTRATE G MIGNACCA-RANDAZZO
File No :FR 10886 of 2016, FR 12269 of 2016, AR 2295 of 2017, AR 1173 of 2017, AR 1174 of 2017, AR 3590 of 2017, AR 3592 of 2017, AR 13910 of 2016, MI 12926 of 2016, PE 23742 of 2017, PE 23743 of 2017, PE 61840 of 2016, AR 2016 of 2017
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing appeal - Whether a sentence should have been imposed other than a term of imprisonment - Suspended sentence - Totality principle - Manifestly excessive sentence
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms G Beggs
Solicitors:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
MCGRATH J:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 28 June 2017 and has been edited from the transcript).
Introduction
The appellant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by a magistrate in respect to 13 offences. Those 13 offences form part of 40 offences in respect to which the appellant pleaded guilty. The sole complaint is that the magistrate imposed an immediate term of imprisonment in circumstances in which it was open for the magistrate to suspend that term of imprisonment. That is, the sentence of immediate imprisonment was unreasonable or plainly unjust.
Magistrate Court Proceedings
On 11 May 2017, the appellant appeared before the magistrate represented by counsel, to be sentenced in respect to 40 offences that the appellant was convicted of her own plea. In addition, at that sentencing hearing, the magistrate dealt with the appellant for breaching a community based order, which was ordered in respect to the appellant on 8 November 2016. The appellant breached the community based order upon her plea of guilty for four offences.
The offending was in respect to various distinct acts of offending. The offences in respect to which the appellant was convicted are outlined in annexure one to these reasons for decision. That annexure provides particulars of each of the offences and the respective sentence imposed. His Honour succinctly summarised the breadth of the appellant's offending during the period 31 August 2016 to 12 April 2017.[1]
[1] ts 27 (11 May 2017).
What may be readily gleaned from annexure one is that the appellant committed 40 offences of considerable seriousness during a reasonably short period. That offending, embraces three offences of being in possession of drugs, one of failing to affix a number plate to be displayed on a vehicle, providing false details, common assault, driving a vehicle with a false plate, 16 offences of stealing, two offences of trespass, one of driving an unlicensed vehicle, one of attempted fraud, two of fraud, two of being in possession of property reasonably suspected to be stolen or unlawfully obtained, six breaches of bail and three of driving under suspension. The four breach offences comprised two offences of possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property, trespass without lawful excuse, and possess a prohibited drug contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA).
The magistrate imposed terms of imprisonment in respect to 13 offences. The appellant appeals against those sentences. The offences in respect to which a term of imprisonment was imposed are outlined in the following table.
| Date | Charge No | Offence | Section | Sentence Imposed |
| 12.08.16 | PE 61840/2016 | Stealing | s 378 Criminal Code (WA) | 3 months imprisonment cumulative |
| 01.10.16 | MI 12926/2016 | (Att) Gains benefit by fraud | s 409(1)(c) Criminal Code (WA) | 1 month imprisonment concurrent |
| 12.10.16 | FR 10886/2016 | Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property | s 417(1) Criminal Code (WA) | 2 months imprisonment concurrent |
| 3.11.16 | AR 13910/2016 | No authority to drive - suspended (other than fines suspension) | s 49(1)(a) & 3(c) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) | 6 months imprisonment cumulative (Head Sentence) |
| 10.11.16 | FR 12269/2016 | No authority to drive - suspended (other than fines suspension) | s 49(1)(a) & 3(c) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) | 6 months imprisonment concurrent |
| 26.12.16 | AR 1173/2017 | Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property | s 417(1) Criminal Code (WA) | 1 month imprisonment concurrent |
| 26.12.16 | AR 1174/2016 | Gains benefit by fraud | s 409(1)(c) Criminal Code (WA) | 2 months imprisonment concurrent |
| 23.01.17 | AR 2295/2017 | Common assault | s 313(1)(b) Criminal Code (WA) | 2 months imprisonment cumulative |
| 11.02.17 | AR 2016/2017 | No authority to drive - suspended (other than fines suspension) | s 49(1)(a) & 3(c) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) | 6 months imprisonment concurrent |
| 10.03.17 | AR 3590/2017 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) | s 51(2) Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 1 month imprisonment concurrent |
| 14.03.17 | AR 3592/2017 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) | s 51(2) Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 1 month imprisonment cumulative |
| 10.04.17 | PE 23742/2017 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) | s 51(2) Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 1 month imprisonment concurrent |
| 12.04.17 | PE 23743/2017 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) | s 51(2) Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 1 month imprisonment concurrent |
| Total effective sentence | 12 months imprisonment | |||
The magistrate outlined in his sentencing remarks that the appellant had accepted the material facts relating to the offences.[2] In particular, his Honour noted that the appellant had driven on three separate occasions whilst under suspension and at the time when the appellant was subject to the community based order.[3]
[2] ts 27 (11 May 2017).
[3] ts 23 (11 May 2017).
On 12 August 2016, the appellant committed the offence of stealing in charge PE 61840/2016 by stealing property from Jaycar Electronics Osborne Park in the amount of $2,476. His Honour considered that offending was particularly serious.[4] Only four days later the appellant returned to the same business, Jaycar Electronics Rockingham, and stole property in the amount of $329.[5] In respect to charges AR 1173/2017 and AR 1174/2017, on 26 December 2016 a burglary offence was committed on premises in Huntingdale. During that burglary a bankcard was stolen. On the same date the appellant entered the Caltex Star Mart shop in Thornlie and used the stolen card to conduct transactions in the amount of $239.24. In respect to FR 10884/2016 the appellant entered the Chemist Warehouse in Belmont and was observed taking property and concealing the items in her bag. The total value of goods taken in respect to that charge was in the amount of $253.17. The concerning aspect of the appellant's offending was that when she was apprehended she punched the hand of the security guard and fled the store.[6] Similarly, when the appellant committed charge AR 2295/2017 she was stealing property from a retail store. When the security guard attempted to intervene the appellant pulled her handbag resulting in the guard being pulled into the store sustaining minor grazing to his inner right arm. The appellant then struck the victim several times with her right hand.[7] The drug offence, FR 10887/2016, concerned the possession of five clipseal bags containing less than one gram of methlyamphetamine.
[4] ts 30 (11 May 2017).
[5] ts 14 (11 May 2017).
[6] ts 9 (11 May 2017).
[7] ts 16 - 17 (11 May 2017).
Appeal
This is an appeal under pt 2 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), which means that leave to appeal is required.[8] An appeal may be made on the grounds that the court of summary jurisdiction made an error of law or fact, that it imposed a sentence that was inadequate or excessive, or that there has been a miscarriage of justice.[9]
[8] Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 9(1).
[9] Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 8.
The court must not grant leave to appeal unless a ground has a reasonable prospect of success. A reasonable prospect of success means that the ground has a real, rational and logical prospect of succeeding and is more than arguable.[10] The court may dismiss or allow the appeal, and may set aside the sentence and substitute a sentence that should have been imposed.[11]
[10] Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 9(2); Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473 [56] (Steytler P, Wheeler and Roberts-Smith JJA).
[11] Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 14.
The notice of appeal referred to 12 charges for which the appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment upon conviction. The notice of appeal did not refer to charge AR 2016/2017 being a charge of driving without authority. At the hearing of this appeal the appellant confirmed that the charge not being referred to on the Notice of Appeal was an oversight. I gave leave for the Notice of Appeal to be amended to include an appeal against charge AR 2016/2017.
The Notice of Appeal raises one ground being:
1.The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, in that it was open to the sentencing magistrate to impose a sentence other than a term of imprisonment.
The ground contends that the sentence imposed in respect to the offence was manifestly excessive. The ground therefore asserts implied error. That is, in all the circumstances, including those personal to the appellant, the sentence imposed was not one open in the exercise of a sound sentencing discretion. It requires the court to be satisfied that the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust.[12] It is not enough in respect to a sentencing appeal to contend that the appellate court might have exercised its discretion in a different manner. There must be error.[13]
[12] Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321, 324 ‑ 325 (Gleeson CJ & Hayne J).
[13] Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665.
A sentence may be manifestly excessive because the wrong type of sentence has been imposed or because the length of the term of imprisonment is manifestly long. To determine whether a sentence is excessive involves considering the maximum sentence prescribed by law for the crime, the standard of sentencing customarily observed with respect to the offence, the place which the criminal conduct occupies on a scale of seriousness of crimes of the kind in question and the personal circumstances of the offender.[14]
[14] Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 6; Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337, 342 (Malcolm CJ); Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600.
At the hearing of the appeal the respondent raised an issue with the ground of appeal. That being that a claim of manifest excess is properly understood as a complaint against one sentence. The respondent submitted that the appellant's complaint is one of totality.
The appellant's complaint, properly understood, is not in respect to the length of any of the terms of imprisonment imposed but that the terms of imprisonment should have been suspended. That is the gravamen of the appeal that I must determine. The complaint is that the total effective sentence is disproportionate to the overall criminality involved in the offending, in that it was open to his Honour to impose a sentence other than a term of immediate imprisonment. The appellant's complaint must be in respect to the failure to suspend all terms of imprisonment given that suspended imprisonment or conditional suspended imprisonment cannot be imposed if the offender is serving, or yet to serve, a term of imprisonment that is not suspended.[15]
[15] Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 76(3)(b), s 81(3)(b).
Given that the appeal, therefore, is in respect to the decision of the magistrate not to suspend multiple sentences, I gave leave to the appellant to amend the ground to plead totality.
The ground of appeal, as amended, is as follows:
The total effective sentence imposed breached the first limb of the totality principle in that it was open to impose a sentence other than a term of immediate imprisonment.
Merits of the Ground of Appeal
In considering this ground of appeal, I am mindful that an appellate court must not substitute its own opinion for that of the sentencing magistrate merely because the appellate court would have exercised the sentencing discretion in a manner different from the sentencing magistrate. There is no single correct sentence and the magistrate must be allowed as much flexibility in sentencing as consonant with consistency of approach and accords with the statutory regime.[16]
[16] Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 [15]; Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 [27].
In order to allow the appeal, I must be satisfied that it was not open for the magistrate in the exercise of his discretion to come to a conclusion that a suspended sentence was inappropriate.
The appellant relies upon the first limb of the totality principle. That is, the total effective sentence must bear a proper relationship to the overall criminality involved in all the offences, viewed in their entirety and having regard to the circumstances of the case including those referable to the offender personally.[17]
[17] Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246.
Section 6(1) of the Sentencing Act1995 (WA) requires a sentence imposed on an offender must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. By s 6(2) the seriousness of the offence must be determined by taking into account the statutory penalty for the offence, the circumstances of the commission of the offence, including the any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors and the vulnerability of any victim of the offence.
Pursuant to s 6(4) of the Sentencing Act a court must not impose a sentence of imprisonment on an offender unless it decides the seriousness of the offence is such that only imprisonment can be justified or the protection of the community requires it.
The relevant principles with respect to the imposition of a suspended imprisonment are uncontroversial.[18] The sentencing options available to his Honour are set out in s 39 of the Sentencing Act. The ultimate option is a term of immediate imprisonment and the two preceding it are conditional suspended imprisonment and suspended respectively. Under s 39(3) of the Sentencing Act a court must not use a sentencing option in s 39(2) unless satisfied that it is not appropriate to use any of the options listed before that option.
[18] Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4 [8].
Pursuant to s 76(2) of the Sentencing Act, suspended imprisonment is not to be imposed unless imprisonment for a term or terms equal to that suspended would, if it were not possible to suspend imprisonment, be appropriate in all the circumstances. Given that s 76(1) permits suspension where a court sentences an offender to a term, or aggregate terms, of imprisonment of up to five years, suspension may be ordered in cases involving serious offending.
The same considerations relevant to the imposition of a term of imprisonment must be revisited in determining whether to suspend the term.[19] That is, all circumstances must be revisited. The sentencing magistrate must be positively satisfied that it is not appropriate to suspend or conditionally suspend a term of imprisonment before the term can be ordered to be served immediately. The appellant must on this appeal satisfy the court that it was not open for the sentencing magistrate in the exercise of his discretion to find that a suspended sentence was inappropriate.
[19] Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 [18], [26], [84], [85].
Disposition of Appeal
His Honour correctly concluded that the appellant's offending demonstrated a continuing disobedience to the law.[20] During the relatively short period between 31 August 2016 and 12 April 2017 the appellant committed 40 offences. Moreover, four were committed during the period in which the appellant was subject to a community based order for similar offending. Further, offending occurred whilst the appellant was on bail.
[20] ts 29 (11 May 2017).
His Honour correctly observed that a number of the offences involved, unlike the appellant's previous offending, acts of violence.[21] Further, the magistrate observed that there were three separate offences of driving without authority when under suspension which were committed whilst the appellant was subject to the community based order. The appellant's course of criminal conduct was also marked by offences of dishonesty and possession of methlyamphetamine.
[21] ts 29 (11 May 2017).
I have considered maximum penalties for all the offences in respect to which the appellant was convicted. When dealt with summarily the maximum penalty for the offences in respect to which a term of imprisonment was imposed are: stealing contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) (two years imprisonment or a $24,000 fine); gain benefit by fraud contrary to s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (two years imprisonment or a $24,000 fine); possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property contrary to s 417(1) of the Criminal Code (two years imprisonment or a $24,000 fine); no authority to drive contrary to s 49(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (imprisonment for not more than 18 months and a fine of not less than $1,000 or more than $4,000 with disqualification of not less than nine months and not more than three years); common assault contrary to s 313 of the Criminal Code (18 months imprisonment and a $18,000 fine); and breach of bail contrary to s 51(2) of the Bail Act1982 (WA) (three years imprisonment or a $10,000 fine or both).
Antecedents
The appellant was a person with poor antecedents. The appellant did not come before his Honour as a person of good character. The offending was properly characterised by his Honour as an escalation in the appellant's offending.
In respect to the appellant's antecedents the magistrate expressly considered the appellant's criminal record observing that the appellant 'in the past has been well and truly known to the criminal justice system'.[22] That criminal record includes a suspended term of imprisonment for offences of no authority to drive or no drivers licence and being disqualified. The appellant's record in that regard is highly relevant to the current offences of a similar nature.
[22] ts 28 (11 May 2017).
I have read the pre‑sentence report dated 5 May 2017, which was before the magistrate. The author of the pre‑sentence report stated:
Ms Shaw's offending behaviour is indicative of her self-disclosed entrenched methlylamphetamine dependency, dysfunctional lifestyle, pro-criminal attitude and poor level of community functioning. She justified and minimised her offending behaviour, failed to demonstrate any level of remorse, and remained focussed on relieving herself of current internment. Ms Shaw indicated she does not wish to be subject to a period of community supervision due to her perceived inability to comply, and informed she wished the court to consider penalties by way of fines or suspended imprisonment. In light of her outstanding treatment needs, absence of pro-social accommodation, previous non-compliance and reluctance to comply, Ms Shaw is not considered suitable for a further period of community supervision.
I have received two letters from the appellant, which I have considered. I accept that in those letters, the appellant has expressed that she has remorse for the offending and that she is committed to her rehabilitation. In her oral submissions to the court, the appellant did present as a person who is now committed to her rehabilitation. I do take her expressions of commitment as indication of her commitment to rehabilitation and that the appellant is now appearing to recognise the need to address her issues.
His Honour expressly stated that he considered all alternative sentencing options other than a term of imprisonment. The magistrate expressed in his reasons that a term of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort.[23]
[23] ts 29 (11 May 2017).
His Honour considered with clarity the legislative framework in respect to the suspending terms of imprisonment and specifically cited Dinsdale v The Queen.[24] His Honour then stated 'in the end I have formed the view very clearly and positively that it would be inappropriate to suspend the terms of imprisonment'.[25] That determination was correct. His Honour expressly considered totality in structuring the sentence.[26] Again the approach of his Honour was without error.
[24] ts 31 (11 May 2017).
[25] ts 31 (11 May 2017).
[26] ts 31 (11 May 2017).
I have considered the mitigating factors which were identified by the magistrate. His Honour gave the appellant a 20% discount for the early plea under s 9AA of the Sentencing Act.[27] I am also mindful that the appellant has an entrenched background in respect to illicit drug use and is a young mother. At the hearing of the appeal the appellant tendered a letter from her daughter who supports her mother and wishes that she be able to return to the family. In the meantime, the 15‑year‑old daughter and three‑year‑old son are living with relatives. There are not exceptional family circumstances in this case. However, the family circumstances do form part of the personal circumstances of the appellant.
[27] ts 28 (11 May 2017).
I have also received from the appellant at the hearing of the appeal two medical certificates from the Granada Medical Practice. One dated 27 February 2017 stated that the appellant will be unfit for work or school from 24 February 2017 to 27 February 2017. That medical certificate does not, in any way, relate to any of the charges in respect to which the appellant was convicted. A further medical certificate dated 10 April 2017 stated that the appellant has a medical condition and will be unfit for work or school on 10 April 2017. That medical certificate provides no other particularisation of the issues that arose on that particular day. Ms Shaw was convicted of a breach of bail on 10 April 2017. In respect to that charge and being represented by counsel, this was not raised in mitigation. Given that the medical certificate provides no details or particularisation and that it was not raised by counsel, I do not consider that it can afford any real mitigation or any effect on sentence. In any event, the sentence that was imposed for the offending of 10 April 2017 was made wholly concurrent. Even if that sentence had not been imposed, the total effective sentence imposed, is still just and reasonable in the circumstances.
Given the extent of the offending which was both persistent and serious, the breach of the community based order, that part of the offending occurred whilst the appellant was on bail, and the personal circumstances of the appellant which is characterised by her poor antecedents, a suspended sentence is not an appropriate disposition. The imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence.
Conclusion
The sentence imposed on the appellant was within the discretion of the sentencing magistrate. The determination not to suspend was appropriate and a most sound exercise of the judicial discretion. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the sentence imposed upon her was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The ground of appeal must fail.
Accordingly, leave to appeal is not granted and the appeal is taken as dismissed.
ANNEXURE 1
Table of Convictions
Table 1.1 – Offences for which the appellant was sentenced on 11 May 2017
| Charge Numbers | Charge Details | Offence Date | Penalty |
| FR 10884/2016 | Stole goods to the value of $253.17 from Chemist Warehouse Belmont contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 31.08.16 | $300 fine |
| FR 10885/2016 | Stole goods to the value of $221.95 from Target Fremantle contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 12.10.16 | $300 fine |
| FR 10886/2016 | Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property contrary to s 417(1) of the Criminal Code (WA) | 12.10.16 | 2 months imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| FR 10887/2016 | Possession of prohibited drug, namely methlyamphetamine, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) | 12.10.16 | $500 fine |
| FR 11302/2016 | Stole goods to the value of $960 from David Jones Ltd contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 19.10.16 | $1000 fine |
| FR 11303/2016 | Possession of prohibited drug, namely methlyamphetamine, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) | 19.10.16 | $500 fine |
| FR 11304/2016 | Gain benefit by fraud contrary to s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA) | 19.10.16 | $500 fine |
| FR 11305/2016 | Stole a Crown Club card the property of Crown Perth contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 19.10.16 | $300 fine |
| FR 12269/2016 | No authority to drive contrary to s 49(1)(a)&(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) | 10.11.16 | 6 months imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| FR 12270/2016 | Stole goods to the value of $158 from Kmart contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 10.11.16 | $300 fine |
| FR 12271/2016 | Trespassed, without lawful excuse, on Kmart Store in breach of banning notice contrary to s 70A(2) of the Criminal Code (WA) | 10.11.16 | $200 fine |
| AR 13910/2016 | No authority to drive contrary to s 49(1)(a)&(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) | 03.11.16 | 6 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively |
| AR 13911/2016 | Failed to correctly affix and display a number plate on a vehicle contrary to s 119(1) of the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Regulations 2014 (WA) | 03.11.16 | $100 fine |
| AR 623/2017 | Stole goods to the value of $49.90 from Woolworths (W.A.) Pty Ltd t/a Dan Murphy's Southern River contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 30.12.16 | $300 fine |
| AR 1073/2017 | Possessing a prohibited drug, namely amphetamine, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) | 23.01.17 | $500 fine |
| AR 1173/2017 | Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property contrary to s 417(1) of the Criminal Code (WA) | 26.12.16 | 1 month imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| AR 1174/2017 | Gain benefit by fraud to the value of $239.24 contrary to s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA) | 26.12.16 | 2 months imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| AR 2016/2017 | No authority to drive contrary to s 49(1)(a)&(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) | 11.02.17 | 6 months imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| AR 2017/2017 | Drove, caused or permitted a vehicle with a forged, replica or false plate to be driven on a road contrary to s 36(2)(e) of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA) | 11.02.17 | $200 fine |
| AR 2018/2017 | Using an unlicensed vehicle on a road contrary to s 4(2) of the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Act 2012 (WA) | 11.02.17 | $100 fine |
| AR 2295/2017 | Common assault contrary to s 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (WA) | 23.01.17 | 2 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively |
| AR 2296/2017 | Stole goods to the value of $178 from Chemist Warehouse t/a Chemist Warehouse Gosnells contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 23.01.17 | $300 fine |
| AR 3588/2017 | Stole goods to the value of $177.93 from Sietta Nominees Pty Ltd t/a Farer Jack's contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 18.02.17 | $300 fine |
| AR 3589/2017 | Stole goods to the value of $500.71 from Coles Myer Group t/a Coles Gosnells contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 20.02.17 | $700 fine |
| AR 3590/2017 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) contrary to s 51(2) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 10.03.17 | 1 month imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| AR 3591/2017 | Gave false details to police contrary to s 16(8) of the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA) | 11.03.17 | $200 fine |
| AR 3592/2017 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) contrary to s 51(2) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 14.03.17 | 1 month imprisonment to be served cumulatively |
| MI 12925/2016 | Trespassed, without lawful excuse, on Kmart Midland contrary to s 70A(2) of the Criminal Code (WA) | 01.10.16 | $200 fine |
| MI 12926/2016 | Attempt to gain benefit by fraud contrary to s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA) | 01.10.16 | 1 month imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| MI 13785/2016 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) contrary to s 51(2) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 14.11.16 | $500 fine |
| MI 13786/2016 | Stole goods to the value of $82.28 from Supa IGA contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 18.11.16 | $300 fine |
| PE 61840/2016 | Stole goods to the value of $2,476 from Jaycar Pty Ltd t/a Jaycar Electronics Osborne Park contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 12.08.16 | 3 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively |
| PE 61841/2016 | Stole goods to the value of $329 from Jaycar Pty Ltd t/a Jaycar Electronics Rockingham contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 16.08.16 | $500 fine |
| PE 70227/2016 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) contrary to s 51(2) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 05.12.16 | $500 fine |
| PE 72459/2016 | Stole goods to the value of $584.50 from Target Innaloo contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 26.12.16 | $700 fine |
| PE 1614/2017 | Stole goods to the value of $45 from Coles Supermarket contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 05.01.16 | $300 fine |
| PE 20438/2017 | Stole goods to the value of $534 from Chemist Warehouse Perth contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 10.03.17 | $700 fine |
| PE 23741/2017 | Stole goods to the value of $760 from Target Westminster contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) | 26.12.16 | $800 fine |
| PE 23742/2017 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) contrary to s 51(2) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 10.04.17 | 1 month imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| PE 23743/2017 | Breach of bail (fail to appear soon after) contrary to s 51(2) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) | 12.04.17 | 1 month imprisonment to be served concurrently |
Table 1.2 – Breach Sentencing for the offences for which the appellant previously received a community based order
| Charge numbers | Resentence | Final Penalty |
| AR 3264/2016 | Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property contrary to s 417(1) of the Criminal Code (WA) | $300 fine |
| AR 9402/2016 | Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property contrary to s 417(1) of the Criminal Code (WA) | $300 fine |
| AR 10999/2016 | Trespassed, without lawful excuse on Kmart Maddington contrary to s 70A(2) of the Criminal Code (WA) | $200 fine |
| AR 11892/16 | Possession of prohibited drug, namely methlyamphetamine, contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 | $500 fine |
0
11
6