WILLMOTT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 300

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 300
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:69/2000	Heard:	2 AUGUST 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY J WALLWORK J PARKER J	Delivered:	18/10/00
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Sentence reduced to 9 months
PDF Version

Parties:	BRETT ANTHONY WILLMOTT THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Applicant unlawfully damaging a plateglass window and a metal door in course of a prison riot Sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment Parity Whether sentence excessive
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Oliver v The Queen (1982) 7 A Crim R 174 Postiglione v The Queen (1996-1997) 189 CLR 295 Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Lowndes v The Queen (1995) 195 CLR 665 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Bekink (1999) 107 A Crim R 415 R v Schneidas (No 1) (1980) 4 A Crim R 95 Shaw v The Queen (1989) 39 A Crim R 343

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WILLMOTT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 300 CORAM : KENNEDY J

WALLWORK J

PARKER J

HEARD : 2 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 18 OCTOBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 69 of 2000 BETWEEN : BRETT ANTHONY WILLMOTT

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Applicant unlawfully damaging a plateglass window and a metal door in course of a prison riot - Sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment - Parity - Whether sentence excessive

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed
Sentence reduced to 9 months

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D McKenna

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant : Director of Legal Aid

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Oliver v The Queen (1982) 7 A Crim R 174
Postiglione v The Queen (1996-1997) 189 CLR 295

Case(s) also cited:

Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Lowndes v The Queen (1995) 195 CLR 665
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Bekink (1999) 107 A Crim R 415
R v Schneidas (No 1) (1980) 4 A Crim R 95
Shaw v The Queen (1989) 39 A Crim R 343

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J: The offence which gave rise to the sentence the subject of this appeal was committed by the applicant in the course of what came to be known as the Casuarina Prison Christmas Riot. He was, it would seem, then being held on remand in custody. The offence was committed while a large number of prisoners were defying, threatening and assaulting prison officers and causing damage to the prison premises. A number of…

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 Willmott v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Willmott v The Queen [2000] WASCA 300
Case: [2000] WASCA 300
Decision Date: 18 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Willmott, was found guilty of unlawfully damaging a plateglass window and a metal door during a prison riot. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment by the Court of Appeal. The case reached the High Court, where the primary issue was whether the sentence was excessive in comparison to similar cases, considering the principle of parity in sentencing. The court had to assess the proportionality of the sentence relative to the nature of the offence and other comparable cases.

The High Court examined the circumstances of the offence, the applicant's criminal history, and the sentencing principles articulated in previous cases. The court noted that while the offence was serious, involving damage to prison property during a riot, the sentence needed to be proportionate to the offence and aligned with sentences imposed in similar cases. The court found that the sentence of 18 months was disproportionate when compared to sentences in similar cases, which typically resulted in shorter custodial terms.

The court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 9 months, finding that this was more consistent with the principle of parity. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and reflective of the gravity of the offence, taking into account the broader context of sentencing in similar cases. The court's decision underscored the need for careful consideration of sentencing principles to ensure fairness and consistency in the judicial process.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and reduce the sentence to 9 months. This decision reaffirmed the principle that sentences should be proportionate and reflective of the specific circumstances of each case, while also considering broader sentencing trends and principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Sentence reduced to 9 months

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.