WAHBY -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 308
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 308 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 22/12/2004 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:108/2004 | 5 NOVEMBER 2004 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ TEMPLEMAN J SIMMONDS J | 5/11/04 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Sentences varied by reducing minimum terms of imprisonment by 4 months in each case | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TAREK IBRAHIM WAHBY THE QUEEN LAWRENCE JOHN AISTROPE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Parity principle Appeal against less severe sentences imposed on two offenders before more severe sentences were imposed on their cooffenders Whether differences in head sentences between two sets of offenders within parity principle as engendering a justifiable sense of grievance after differences in criminality and other circumstances are taken into account Minimum term of imprisonment imposed on one set of offenders who pleaded guilty and made offers of cooperation the same as that imposed on the second set of offenders who pleaded not guilty Whether equivalence in minimum terms engenders a justifiable sense of grievance after differences in criminality, as to pleas of guilty, and other factors are taken into account |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D, s 86(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 100 |
Case References: | Caratti v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 527 Goddard v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 541 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Mustafa v The Queen (2002) 192 ALR 254 Puls v The Queen [2000] WASCA 11 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 Beard v The Queen [2003] WASCA 262 Director of Public Prosecutions v Goldberg (2001) 184 ALR 387 R v Place (2002) 128 A Crim R 325 R v Stroud (1977) 65 Cr App Rep 150 Tisalandis v The Queen [1982] 2 NSWLR 430 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WAHBY -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 308 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- TEMPLEMAN J
SIMMONDS J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Page 2)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MCKECHNIE J
Citation : THE QUEEN v WAHBY and AISTROPE
File No : INS 80 of 2003
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Parity principle - Appeal against less severe sentences imposed on two offenders before more severe sentences were imposed on their cooffenders - Whether differences in head sentences between two sets of offenders within parity principle as engendering a justifiable sense of grievance after differences in criminality and other circumstances are taken into account - Minimum term of imprisonment imposed on one set of offenders who pleaded guilty and…
Continue reading Wahby v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wahby v The Queen [2004] WASCA 308
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 308
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Wahby, along with co-offenders, was involved in a serious criminal case. The dispute arose over the sentencing of Wahby and his co-offenders, where Wahby and one other offender received less severe sentences than their co-offenders, who received more severe sentences. Wahby sought to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and did not accord with the principle of parity. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the differences in the head sentences between Wahby and his co-offenders were justifiable, taking into account the differences in their criminality and other relevant circumstances. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the fact that Wahby and one other offender pleaded guilty and made offers of cooperation while their co-offenders pleaded not guilty justified the differences in their sentences. The court also had to consider whether the equivalence in the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders, compared to their co-offenders, engendered a justifiable sense of grievance.
The court held that the differences in the head sentences between Wahby and his co-offenders, and their co-offenders, were justifiable. The court found that the differences in their criminality and other relevant circumstances, including their pleas of guilty or not guilty, and their offers of cooperation, justified the differences in their sentences. The court also found that the equivalence in the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders, compared to their co-offenders, did not engender a justifiable sense of grievance. The court held that the sentences imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders were not manifestly excessive and did accord with the principle of parity.
The court allowed Wahby's appeal and varied his sentence by reducing the minimum term of imprisonment by four months. The court held that the sentences imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders were not manifestly excessive and did accord with the principle of parity, but the reduction in the minimum term of imprisonment was necessary to ensure that the sentences imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders were proportionate to their criminality and other relevant circumstances. The court held that the reduction in the minimum term of imprisonment by four months in each case was sufficient to achieve this objective.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the differences in the head sentences between Wahby and his co-offenders were justifiable, taking into account the differences in their criminality and other relevant circumstances. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the fact that Wahby and one other offender pleaded guilty and made offers of cooperation while their co-offenders pleaded not guilty justified the differences in their sentences. The court also had to consider whether the equivalence in the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders, compared to their co-offenders, engendered a justifiable sense of grievance.
The court held that the differences in the head sentences between Wahby and his co-offenders, and their co-offenders, were justifiable. The court found that the differences in their criminality and other relevant circumstances, including their pleas of guilty or not guilty, and their offers of cooperation, justified the differences in their sentences. The court also found that the equivalence in the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders, compared to their co-offenders, did not engender a justifiable sense of grievance. The court held that the sentences imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders were not manifestly excessive and did accord with the principle of parity.
The court allowed Wahby's appeal and varied his sentence by reducing the minimum term of imprisonment by four months. The court held that the sentences imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders were not manifestly excessive and did accord with the principle of parity, but the reduction in the minimum term of imprisonment was necessary to ensure that the sentences imposed on Wahby and his co-offenders were proportionate to their criminality and other relevant circumstances. The court held that the reduction in the minimum term of imprisonment by four months in each case was sufficient to achieve this objective.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentences varied by reducing minimum terms of imprisonment by 4 months in each
case
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.