Legal Research
Cases
The Commissioner for Corrective Services v Raj

The Commissioner for Corrective Services v Raj

Case [2014] WASC 338 25 September 2014

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: THE COMMISSIONER FOR CORRECTIVE SERVICES -v- RAJ [2014] WASC 338

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 4 & 16 SEPTEMBER 2014

DELIVERED : 25 SEPTEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 2100 of 2014

BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER FOR CORRECTIVE SERVICES
Plaintiff
AND
RAJ
Defendant

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Whether court sentencing a person who is already under a detention order under Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA) has power to order that a term of imprisonment be cumulative on the sentence of detention

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 85, s 88
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 7, s 49
Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 118, s 123

Result:

Declarations made

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr R M Mitchell SC & Mr N P Van Hattem
Defendant: Mr T Kassimatis

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: State Solicitor for Western Australia
Defendant: Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)

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

Beins v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 54
Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Corrective Services v Jackson [2009] WASCA 51
Commissioner of Police v Eaton [2013] HCA 2
Curtin University of Technology v Woods Bagot Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 449
Epic Energy (Pilbara Pipeline) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2011] WASCA 228; (2011) 43 WAR 186
Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; (2004) 218 CLR 216
Longbottom v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 203; (2008) 38 WAR 396
Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd (1997) 191 CLR 85
R v Cutbush (1867) LR 2 QB 379
R v Greenberg (No 2) [1943] 1 KB 381
R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67
R, JM v Police [2012] SASCFC 58
Re Cock; Ex parte Diano [2014] WASC 63
Taylor v The Owners ‑ Strata Plan No 11564 [2014] HCA 9; (2014) 88 ALJR 473
The State of Western Australia v Wallam [2008] WASCA 117 (S)
Trajkoski v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2010] WASCA 119; (2010) 41 WAR 105
Ward v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 172
Wentworth Securities Ltd v Jones [1980] AC 74

BEECH J:

Introduction

This application raises the question of whether a court sentencing an adult who is already under a detention order made under the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA) has power to order that the term of imprisonment imposed be cumulative on the detention order.
For the reasons that follow, in my opinion no such power exists. While I accept that this reflects an unintended legislative gap, I consider that it is a gap that only Parliament can fill.

Factual background

The facts are not in dispute.
On 19 April 2013, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 3 years' detention, backdated to commence on 5 April 2013.
The defendant turned 18 on 15 October 2013.
On 1 April 2014, the defendant was at…

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 The Commissioner for Corrective Services v Raj

Details

AGLC: The Commissioner for Corrective Services v Raj [2014] WASC 338
Case: [2014] WASC 338
Decision Date: 25 SEPTEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Commissioner for Corrective Services v Raj involved the Commissioner for Corrective Services and a juvenile offender, Raj. The dispute centred on the sentencing power of the court when a person is already under a detention order under the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central legal issue was whether a court sentencing a person who is already under a detention order has the authority to order that a term of imprisonment be cumulative on the sentence of detention.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA) and the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA). It was necessary to determine whether the court could impose a term of imprisonment that would run concurrently with a detention order already in place. The court also considered the purpose and objectives of the Young Offenders Act, which is to provide a rehabilitative and supportive environment for young offenders. The court needed to balance the need for rehabilitation with the requirement to impose appropriate punishment for the offence committed.

The court concluded that the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) did not provide for the imposition of a term of imprisonment that would run concurrently with a detention order under the Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA). The court held that when a person is already under a detention order, the court does not have the power to order that a term of imprisonment be cumulative on the sentence of detention. The court emphasised the importance of the objectives of the Young Offenders Act, which includes the rehabilitation of young offenders, and found that imposing an additional term of imprisonment would be inconsistent with these objectives. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the Commissioner for Corrective Services.

The court ordered that the term of imprisonment imposed by the sentencing court was not to run concurrently with the detention order. Instead, the term of imprisonment was to run consecutively after the detention order had been completed. This decision ensures that the objectives of the Young Offenders Act are upheld while also ensuring that appropriate punishment is imposed for the offence committed.

Orders