WALE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 418

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 418
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:23/2001	Heard:	5 DECEMBER 2001
Coram:	STEYTLER J WHITE AUJ OLSSON AUJ	Delivered:	20/12/01
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	JOHN DAVID WALE THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence following conviction on a plea of guilty Distinction between a fast-track guilty plea and an early plea not on the fast-track system Head sentence of 18 years for convictions on one count of robbery and eight counts of armed robbery Offender being armed with a loaded firearm on at least three occasions held not excessive Parole granted because of possibility of rehabilitation despite extensive criminal record and offences committed while defendant was serving a suspended sentence No error found on the part of the learned sentencing Judge
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Day v The Queen [2001] WASCA 284 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 McKeagg v The Queen [2001] WASCA 99 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Shaharuddin v R [1999] WASCA 229 Siganto (1998) 194 CLR 656 Thomson v Houlton (2000) 115 A Crim R 104 Trescuri v R [1999] WASC 172 Verschuren v R (1995) 17 WAR 467

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WALE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 418 CORAM : STEYTLER J

WHITE AUJ

OLSSON AUJ

HEARD : 5 DECEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 20 DECEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 23 of 2001 BETWEEN : JOHN DAVID WALE

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence following conviction on a plea of guilty - Distinction between a fast-track guilty plea and an early plea not on the fast-track system - Head sentence of 18 years for convictions on one count of robbery and eight counts of armed robbery - Offender being armed with a loaded firearm on at least three occasions held not excessive - Parole granted because of possibility of rehabilitation despite extensive criminal record and offences committed while defendant was serving a suspended sentence - No error found on the part of the learned sentencing Judge

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms K Farley

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Unrepresented Criminal Appellants Scheme

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Day v The Queen [2001] WASCA 284
Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87

Case(s) also cited:

McKeagg v The Queen [2001] WASCA 99
Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254
Shaharuddin v R [1999] WASCA 229
Siganto (1998) 194 CLR 656
Thomson v Houlton (2000) 115 A Crim R 104
Trescuri v R [1999] WASC 172
Verschuren v R (1995) 17 WAR 467

(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER J: I have had…

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 Wale v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wale v The Queen [2001] WASCA 418
Case: [2001] WASCA 418
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wale v The Queen, the defendant appealed against his sentence following his conviction on a plea of guilty to one count of robbery and eight counts of armed robbery. The offender was armed with a loaded firearm on at least three occasions. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the defendant sought to challenge the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge. The appeal raised questions regarding the distinction between a fast-track guilty plea and an early plea not on the fast-track system, as well as the appropriateness of the 18-year head sentence imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge was excessive. The defendant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offences committed and that the learned sentencing Judge had not given sufficient weight to the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate and that the Judge had correctly considered the severity of the offences and the need to deter the offender and others from committing similar crimes. The court also considered the possibility of parole, granted to the offender due to the possibility of rehabilitation, despite the extensive criminal record and offences committed while the defendant was serving a suspended sentence.

The High Court found no error in the reasoning or approach of the sentencing Judge. The court held that the 18-year head sentence was not excessive and that the Judge had correctly considered the relevant factors, including the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The court also found that the granting of parole was appropriate, given the possibility of rehabilitation, despite the extensive criminal record and the fact that the defendant committed offences while serving a suspended sentence. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.