Templin v The Queen - [2002] WASCA 318

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: TEMPLIN -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 318

CORAM: TEMPLEMAN J
MCKECHNIE J
ROLFE AJ

HEARD: 5 NOVEMBER 2002

DELIVERED : 5 NOVEMBER 2002

PUBLISHED : 28 NOVEMBER 2002

FILE NO/S: CCA 81 of 2002

BETWEEN: LUKE FRANCIS TEMPLIN
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal procedure - Appeal against sentence - Offences arising out of breakdown of de facto relationship - Whether the learned sentencing Judge fell into error in making the sentences cumulative - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Pieri v The Queen [2002] WASCA 288
R v White [2002] WASCA 112

Case(s) also cited:

Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Leucus (1995) 78 A Crim R 40
Ward v The Queen (1999) 109 A Crim R 159
Woods v R (1994) 14 WAR 341

TEMPLEMAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence totalling four years' imprisonment which was imposed on the applicant by a District Court judge on 24 April this year.
The offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty and in respect of which he was convicted were one offence of aggravated burglary, one of robbery, one of escaping legal custody, three breaches of a violence restraining order and two offences of assaulting a public officer.
There is a background to this matter, and that is the de facto relationship between the applicant and a Ms Amanda Penberthy, which resulted in the birth of a son to Ms Penberthy on 29 March 2001. The problem that arose from the applicant's point of view was that Ms Penberthy denied him access to his son and he was very anxious to see his son and to be closely involved in the upbringing of his son. The applicant was formerly a heroin addict and his de facto Ms Penberthy was also a user of drugs and that was a matter which caused him very considerable concern.
The first offence, the aggravated burglary, was committed on 19 August 2001, when the applicant went to Ms Penberthy's mother's house, where Ms Penberthy was living. He did so for the purpose of seeing his son, but he was not permitted access. He therefore kicked in the front door and entered the house. He left when the police were called.
The robbery occurred two days later, on 21 August, in the vicinity of the Whitford train station. On that occasion the applicant assaulted Ms Penberthy. There was some dispute as to precisely what happened, but the learned sentencing judge, rightly in my view, said that the detail was not a matter…

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 Templin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Templin v The Queen [2002] WASCA 318
Case: [2002] WASCA 318
Decision Date: 28 NOVEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Templin v The Queen, the appellant, Templin, was convicted of several offences stemming from the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing cumulative sentences for the various offences. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed and applied the principles of cumulative sentencing in light of the unique facts of this case.

The High Court considered whether the sentencing judge appropriately exercised judicial discretion in imposing sentences that were cumulative. The court examined the principles of cumulative sentencing and the relevant legal authorities that guide such decisions. It was crucial to assess whether the judge adequately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence against the potential for excessive punishment. The court reviewed the sentencing judge's reasoning to determine if it aligned with established legal principles and whether it appropriately considered the circumstances of the case.

After thorough deliberation, the High Court concluded that the sentencing judge did not err in making the sentences cumulative. The court found that the judge had correctly applied the principles of cumulative sentencing and had provided adequate reasons for the imposition of consecutive terms. The sentencing judge's approach was consistent with legal authorities and appropriately balanced the various considerations relevant to the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld. The court's decision underscored the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the necessity for thorough and reasoned application of legal principles.

Orders