TAYLOR -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 31

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 31
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:114/2003	Heard:	16 FEBRUARY 2004
Coram:	STEYTLER J WHEELER J MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	11/03/04
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RICHARD JOSEPH TAYLOR THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentence Two counts armed robbery Whether a parole eligibility order should be made No new principles
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995, s 89(4)
Case References:	Abdullah v The Queen [2002] WASCA 57 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : TAYLOR -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 31 CORAM : STEYTLER J

WHEELER J

MCKECHNIE J

HEARD : 16 FEBRUARY 2004 DELIVERED : 11 MARCH 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 114 of 2003 BETWEEN : RICHARD JOSEPH TAYLOR

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WA

Coram : EM HEENAN J

File Number : INS 122 of 2003

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentence - Two counts armed robbery - Whether a parole eligibility order should be made - No new principles

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995, s 89(4)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr K M Tavener

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Abdullah v The Queen [2002] WASCA 57

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER J: I have had the advantage of reading, in draft, the judgment of McKechnie J. I agree with it. Under s 89(4) of the Sentencing Act 1995 a court may decide not to make a parole eligibility order if it considers that the offender should not be eligible for parole because of at least two of the four factors there set out. Those are:

"(a) the offence is serious;

(b) the offender has a significant criminal record;

(d) any other reasons the court considers relevant."

2 As appears from the judgment of McKechnie J, each of the factors in subpar (a) to (c) was present in this case and it was, in all of the circumstances of the case, open to the sentencing Judge to conclude, as his Honour did, that the applicant should not be eligible for parole in those circumstances.

3 Consequently, and for the reasons given by McKechnie J, I would extend the time in which to bring the application for leave to appeal but would dismiss that application.

4 WHEELER J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for decision of McKechnie J, with which I agree. I too would extend time but would dismiss the application.

5 MCKECHNIE J: This is an application for extension of time and…

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.

Continue reading Taylor v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The Queen [2004] WASCA 31
Case: [2004] WASCA 31
Decision Date: 11 MARCH 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v The Queen involves an appeal by the defendant, who was convicted on two counts of armed robbery. The respondent, the Crown, sought to impose a sentence on the defendant. The legal dispute was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether a parole eligibility order should be made for the defendant. This was a matter of significant legal debate, considering the nature and severity of the defendant's crimes. The court needed to determine if the circumstances warranted such a sentence, particularly in light of the existing legal framework and principles governing parole eligibility in armed robbery cases.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the principles and precedents that govern sentencing in cases of armed robbery. The High Court recognised that no new principles of law were required to be established in this instance. Instead, the court relied on established legal standards and the specific facts of the case to guide its judgment. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the potential risk the defendant posed to society if released early. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the existing legal principles adequately addressed the matter at hand, and no new legal standards were necessary.

The High Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors in imposing the sentence, including the nature of the crimes and the defendant's background. The court upheld the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal. The court's reasoning was grounded in the existing body of case law and the specific circumstances of the defendant's case. The High Court's decision affirmed the trial judge's sentence and rejected the defendant's appeal, thereby concluding that no parole eligibility order should be made in this instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.