Legal Research
Cases
Waye v The Queen

Waye v The Queen

Case [2000] NTCCA 5 20 September 2000

Appeal

Sentencing

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

Waye v The Queen [2000] NTCCA 5
PARTIES:RICKY FRANCIS WAYE

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL      OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 21 of 1999
DELIVERED:  20 September 2000
HEARING DATES:  2 August 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, ANGEL & BAILEY JJ
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – APPEAL AGAINST
Whether sufficient weight given to expert evidence
R v Tsiaras (1991) 1 VR 398, considered
R v Anderson (1981) VR 155, referred to
R v Man (1990) 50 A Crim R 79, referred to
Thiele (1986) 19 A Crim R 105, referred to
R v Yaldiz (1998) 2 VR 376, applied
Whether sentence was manifestly excessive – whether principal of totality
was correctly applied.
Serra 1996) 92 A Crim R 511, applied
R v Mill 1988) 166 CLR 59, applied
Kelly (CCA (NT) 30^th June 2000, unreported) applied
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J Lawrence
Respondent:  R Wild QC & Dr N Rogers
Solicitors:
Appellant:CAALAS
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  bai006
Number of pages:  23

bai006
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Waye v The Queen [2000] NTCCA 5

No. CA 21 of 1999

BETWEEN:
RICKY FRANCIS WAYE

Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, ANGEL & BAILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 20 September 2000)

The Court:

Background: Charges and Sentence

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court indicated that it would hear the application for leave and the submissions on the grounds of appeal together.
On 18 November 1999, the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of offences set out in two indictments in respect of which sentence was imposed on 26 November 1999. The first indictment contained one charge of aggravated robbery committed at Alice Springs on 24 October 1998. The circumstances of aggravation were that the applicant caused bodily harm to his victim. The second indictment contained five charges relating to crimes committed at Alice Springs during the early hours of 4 December 1998. The first three counts related to crimes committed by the applicant at 5 Achilpa Street, Alice Springs while the remaining two counts concerned crimes committed at 5 Pedler Street, Alice Springs. The offences were:
Count 1- Aggravated unlawful entry (intent to steal and occurrence at night time)
Count 2- Stealing (a hammer valued at $22.85)
Count 3- Attempted aggravated unlawful entry (intent to steal; building a dwelling house; occurrence at night time; applicant armed with an offensive weapon, namely the stolen hammer)
Count 4- Aggravated unlawful entry (intent to commit unlawful sexual intercourse; building a dwelling house; occurrence at night time; applicant armed with offensive weapons, namely the stolen hammer and a knife)
Count 5- Unlawful sexual intercourse
The maximum penalties for the applicant’s crimes are:
First indictment: Imprisonment for life (s 211 (1) & (2) of the Criminal Code)
Second indictment: Count…

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 Waye v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Waye v The Queen [2000] NTCCA 5
Case: [2000] NTCCA 5
Decision Date: 20 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, Waye, following his conviction for a criminal offence. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, comprising Martin CJ, Angel and Bailey JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive, thereby warranting appellate intervention. The Court was required to consider the principles governing the imposition of sentences for the particular offence and to assess whether the sentencing judge had erred in the exercise of their discretion.

The Court's reasoning focused on the established principles of sentencing, including the need to balance punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. It considered the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant's subjective circumstances, including his prior record and any mitigating factors, and the sentencing range applicable to similar offences. The Court ultimately determined that the sentence imposed was not outside the bounds of what a judge, properly applying the relevant principles, could impose.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was affirmed.

Orders