WESTON -v- CARTMELL [2015] WASC 87
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 87 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1096/2014 | 19 FEBRUARY 2015 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 16/03/15 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Suspended sentence imposed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GRANT WILLIAM WESTON JILLIAN MONA CARTMELL BRENDAN MICHAEL GORGAN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Trespass and multiple breach of bail offences Whether total effective sentence of 16 months imprisonment infringed the totality principle Unusual circumstances of offences and exceptional personal circumstances Whether suspended sentence appropriate |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4 Corrigan v Kirkman [2011] WASC 254 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Edgill v Maguire [2013] WASC 472 Hamlet v Whitney [2013] WASC 100 Horner v Hunt [2013] WASC 241 Moir v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 25 Pavlitsas v Rowe [2013] WASC 233 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245; (1983) 13 A Crim R 375 Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 The State of Western Australia v McCarthy [2014] WASCA 210 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
JILLIAN MONA CARTMELL
BRENDAN MICHAEL GORGAN
Respondents
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE T R WATT
File No : AL 3325 of 2013, AL 995 - 999 of 2014, AL 1000 - 1120 of 2014, AL 1302 - 1454 of 2014
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Trespass and multiple breach of bail offences - Whether total effective sentence of 16 months imprisonment infringed the totality principle - Unusual circumstances of offences and exceptional personal circumstances - Whether suspended sentence appropriate
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Suspended sentence imposed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : P D Yovich
Respondents : Mr D J Anderson
Solicitors:
Appellant : Paul Yovich
Respondents : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4
Corrigan v Kirkman [2011] WASC 254
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Edgill v Maguire [2013] WASC 472
Hamlet v Whitney [2013] WASC 100
Horner v Hunt [2013] WASC 241
Moir v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 25
Pavlitsas v Rowe [2013] WASC 233
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245; (1983) 13 A Crim R 375
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
The State of Western Australia v McCarthy [2014] WASCA 210
1 HALL J: This is an appeal against sentence.
2 On 17 December 2014 the appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 16…
Continue reading Weston v Cartmell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Weston v Cartmell [2015] WASC 87
- Case
- [2015] WASC 87
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved an appeal against sentence by the respondent, Cartmell, who had been convicted of trespass and multiple breaches of bail conditions. The primary issue was whether the total effective sentence of 16 months imprisonment imposed on Cartmell infringed the totality principle. The respondent argued that the sentence was excessive and that the unusual circumstances of the offences, along with Cartmell's exceptional personal circumstances, warranted a different approach to sentencing, such as a suspended sentence.
The court examined the principles governing sentencing, particularly the totality principle, which requires that the cumulative effect of sentences for multiple offences must not be disproportionate to the overall gravity of the offending. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the fact that the trespass and breaches of bail occurred in a domestic violence context. Additionally, the court took into account Cartmell's personal circumstances, such as his mental health issues and the absence of a criminal record. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was too severe and did not appropriately balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to consider the individual circumstances of the offender.
Given the unique nature of the offences and Cartmell's personal circumstances, the court found that a suspended sentence would be more appropriate. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, imposing a suspended sentence in place of the original 16-month imprisonment term. This decision reflects the court's recognition of the need to balance the totality principle with the individual circumstances of the offender, especially in cases involving domestic violence and mental health issues.
The court examined the principles governing sentencing, particularly the totality principle, which requires that the cumulative effect of sentences for multiple offences must not be disproportionate to the overall gravity of the offending. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the fact that the trespass and breaches of bail occurred in a domestic violence context. Additionally, the court took into account Cartmell's personal circumstances, such as his mental health issues and the absence of a criminal record. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was too severe and did not appropriately balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to consider the individual circumstances of the offender.
Given the unique nature of the offences and Cartmell's personal circumstances, the court found that a suspended sentence would be more appropriate. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, imposing a suspended sentence in place of the original 16-month imprisonment term. This decision reflects the court's recognition of the need to balance the totality principle with the individual circumstances of the offender, especially in cases involving domestic violence and mental health issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Suspended sentence imposed
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.