STACK -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2016] WASCA 89

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 89
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:215/2015	Heard:	5 MAY 2016
Coram:	McLURE P MAZZA JA	Delivered:	3/06/16
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SARAH JANE STACK THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Criminal law Leave to appeal against sentence Whether individual sentences manifestly excessive Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) Criminal Code (WA) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Case References:	Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : STACK -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2016] WASCA 89 CORAM : McLURE P

MAZZA JA

HEARD : 5 MAY 2016 DELIVERED : 3 JUNE 2016 FILE NO/S : CACR 215 of 2015 BETWEEN : SARAH JANE STACK

Appellant

AND

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MARTINO J

File No : INS 7 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Leave to appeal against sentence - Whether individual sentences manifestly excessive - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)

Criminal Code (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462

1 McLURE P: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted on her pleas of guilty of one count of stealing a motor vehicle contrary to s 371A and s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA) (Code) and one count of aggravated burglary contrary to s 401(2)(a) of the Code.

2 On 11 August 2015 the appellant was sentenced by Martino J to 6 months imprisonment for the stealing offence and 4 years imprisonment for the aggravated burglary offence. The sentencing judge ordered that those sentences be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the sentence of 1 year 9 months the appellant was then serving.

3 The aggravated burglary offence was committed with two male co-offenders, one who remained unidentified. The other co-offender was Allan Taylor. He also pleaded guilty to the offence and, on 29 January 2016, was sentenced by Corboy J to a sentence of 3 years 4 months imprisonment.

4 The appellant claimed that: (1) the sentence for the aggravated burglary offence breached the parity principle; (2) the individual sentences are manifestly excessive; and (3) the total effective sentence breached the first limb of totality principle.

5 Each ground of appeal is without merit. Accordingly, leave to appeal on all grounds must be refused, in which event, the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stack v The State of Western Australia and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WASCA 89
Decision Date: 3 JUNE 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stack v The State of Western Australia, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him. The applicant, Stack, had been convicted of various criminal offences and was sentenced by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive in light of the specific circumstances of the case. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences warranted appeal by examining the proportionality and appropriateness of the penalties given the nature of the crimes committed.

The court considered the principles surrounding sentencing, particularly focusing on the need for sentences to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender. The applicant argued that the sentences were excessive and disproportionate, but the court examined the evidence and the sentencing remarks to assess the justification for the penalties. It was noted that the sentences were within the range prescribed by law and were reflective of the seriousness of the crimes. The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and did not constitute a significant departure from the norm in similar cases.

As a result of the court's findings, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the original sentence stood as imposed by the Supreme Court. The court emphasised that the decision to refuse leave to appeal was based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case, and did not set a binding precedent for other cases. The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed, leaving the original sentence in place.

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.