WILSON -v- PYMM [2015] WASC 449
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 449 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1052/2015 | 29 OCTOBER 2015 | |
| Coram: | TOTTLE J | 24/11/15 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted in part Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DARREN LEE WILSON ANTHONY BRIAN OLIVER PYMM |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Driving under the influence Whether sentence of imprisonment ought to have been suspended Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9 Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 107 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 58(1), s 63, s 67, s 77(1) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6(4) |
Case References: | Cassoti v Pickering [2013] WASC 174 Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Fogg v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 11 Hull v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 194 Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McDonald v White [2007] WASCA 138 Moody v French [2008] WASCA 67; (2008) 36 WAR 393 Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316 R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368 Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193 Wilson v Robertson [2014] WASC 421 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
ANTHONY BRIAN OLIVER PYMM
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE M FLYNN
File No : AR 1459 of 2014, AR 1460 of 2014, AR 1461 of 2014
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Driving under the influence - Whether sentence of imprisonment ought to have been suspended - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9
Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA),s 107
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 58(1), s 63, s 67, s 77(1)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6(4)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted in part
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr M J Blyth
Respondent : Mr D J Anderson
Solicitors:
Appellant : Lewis Blyth & Hooper
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cassoti v Pickering [2013] WASC 174
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Fogg v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 11
Hull v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 194
Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
McDonald v White [2007] WASCA 138
Moody v French [2008] WASCA 67; (2008) 36 WAR 393
Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316
Continue reading Wilson v Pymm
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wilson v Pymm [2015] WASC 449
- Case
- [2015] WASC 449
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Wilson v Pymm, the appellant, Wilson, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed on him following a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. The court was asked to determine whether the sentence of imprisonment should have been suspended, given the specific circumstances of the case. The trial judge had considered the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence but ultimately decided that a custodial sentence was necessary.
The legal issues at the heart of the appeal revolved around the principles of sentencing for driving under the influence, particularly the discretion available to the trial judge in determining whether to impose a suspended sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the mitigating factors and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The central question was whether the trial judge's decision to impose an immediate custodial sentence was justified by the circumstances of the case.
The court, after a thorough review of the sentencing principles and the facts of the case, found that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and public protection in cases of driving under the influence. It was held that the trial judge's decision to impose an immediate custodial sentence was within the range of acceptable outcomes and did not represent an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted in part to address the specific issue of the trial judge's consideration of the appellant's criminal history.
The legal issues at the heart of the appeal revolved around the principles of sentencing for driving under the influence, particularly the discretion available to the trial judge in determining whether to impose a suspended sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the mitigating factors and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The central question was whether the trial judge's decision to impose an immediate custodial sentence was justified by the circumstances of the case.
The court, after a thorough review of the sentencing principles and the facts of the case, found that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and public protection in cases of driving under the influence. It was held that the trial judge's decision to impose an immediate custodial sentence was within the range of acceptable outcomes and did not represent an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted in part to address the specific issue of the trial judge's consideration of the appellant's criminal history.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted in part
Appeal dismissed
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.