SHEE -v- JENNINGS [2013] WASC 162
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 162 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1159/2012 | 23 APRIL 2013 | |
| Coram: | CORBOY J | 6/05/13 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Appellant to be re-sentenced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
ROBERT ALAN JENNINGS
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE HEENEY
File No : PE 45113 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Whether relevant considerations were taken into account
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act (WA), s 8
Criminal Code (WA), s 284
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Appellant to be re-sentenced
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms J Fordham
Respondent : Ms S Markham
Solicitors:
Appellant : Fordham & Roast
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Abeyakoon v Brown [2011] WASCA 63
Able Lott Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle [2011] WASC 87
Bienke v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1996) 63 FCR 567; 135 ALR 128
Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6; 209 CLR 339
Chivers v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 97
Clarkson v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 250
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Gazeley v Segers [2006] WASC 76
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Keating v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 98; 35 WAR 1
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195…
Continue reading Shee v Jennings
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- SHEE -v- JENNINGS [2013] WASC 162
- Case
- [2013] WASC 162
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter involved an appeal by the appellant against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant had been convicted of a criminal offence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the lower court had failed to take into account relevant considerations when imposing the sentence. The appeal was heard by the court, which was required to determine whether the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and whether the lower court had failed to take into account relevant considerations.
The court considered the arguments advanced by the appellant and the submissions made by the respondent. The court noted that the appellant had been convicted of a serious offence and that the sentence imposed by the lower court was within the maximum penalty prescribed by law. However, the court also noted that the appellant had no prior criminal history and that there were mitigating factors that should have been taken into account when imposing the sentence. The court found that the lower court had failed to adequately consider these mitigating factors and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced. The court emphasised the importance of taking into account all relevant considerations when imposing a sentence, including any mitigating factors that may be present. The court also noted that the sentence imposed by the lower court was not in keeping with the principles of proportionality and justice. The court's decision highlights the need for courts to carefully consider all relevant factors when imposing a sentence, and to ensure that the sentence is proportionate to the offence committed.
The court considered the arguments advanced by the appellant and the submissions made by the respondent. The court noted that the appellant had been convicted of a serious offence and that the sentence imposed by the lower court was within the maximum penalty prescribed by law. However, the court also noted that the appellant had no prior criminal history and that there were mitigating factors that should have been taken into account when imposing the sentence. The court found that the lower court had failed to adequately consider these mitigating factors and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced. The court emphasised the importance of taking into account all relevant considerations when imposing a sentence, including any mitigating factors that may be present. The court also noted that the sentence imposed by the lower court was not in keeping with the principles of proportionality and justice. The court's decision highlights the need for courts to carefully consider all relevant factors when imposing a sentence, and to ensure that the sentence is proportionate to the offence committed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Appellant to be re-sentenced
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.