WILSON -v- ROBERTSON [2014] WASC 421
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 421 | |
| 12/11/2014 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1082/2014 | 4 NOVEMBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | BEECH J | 4/11/14 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal upheld Appellant resentenced | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LEESA WILSON TROY ANTHONY ROBERTSON |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and sentencing Third offence of driving under the influence Appellant sentenced to 7 months' imprisonment to be served immediately Whether decision not to suspend the term of imprisonment was open Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 63 |
Case References: | Almonte v Beswick [2013] WASC 207 Anderson v Little [2009] WASC 143 Casotti 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 Humble v State Solicitor for Western Australia [2009] WASC 99 Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65 Moody v French [2008] WASCA 67; (2008) 36 WAR 393 Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316 Pavlitsas v Rowe [2013] WASC 233 Powell v Tickner [2010] WASCA 224 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 Skipworth v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 64 The State of Western Australia v Johnson [2009] WASCA 224 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
TROY ANTHONY ROBERTSON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE G A BENN
File No : MI 6988 of 2014, MI 6989 of 2014, MI 6990 of 2014
Catchwords:
Criminal law and sentencing - Third offence of driving under the influence - Appellant sentenced to 7 months' imprisonment to be served immediately - Whether decision not to suspend the term of imprisonment was open - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 63
Result:
Appeal upheld
Appellant resentenced
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms N R Sinton
Respondent : Ms M Georgiou
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Almonte v Beswick [2013] WASC 207
Anderson v Little [2009] WASC 143
Casotti 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
Humble v State Solicitor for Western Australia [2009] WASC 99
Logan v Kuser [2008] WASC 65
Moody v French [2008] WASCA 67; (2008) 36 WAR 393
Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316
Pavlitsas v Rowe [2013] WASC 233
Powell v Tickner [2010] WASCA 224
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
Skipworth v The…
Continue reading Wilson v Robertson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wilson v Robertson [2014] WASC 421
- Case
- [2014] WASC 421
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Wilson v Robertson, the appellant, Wilson, challenged his sentence of seven months' imprisonment imposed for driving under the influence, which was his third such offence. The sentencing judge ruled that the term of imprisonment was to be served immediately, without any suspension, and this decision was the subject of the appeal before the court. The court had to determine whether the decision not to suspend the term of imprisonment was open to the sentencing judge and whether it was appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge exercised a discretion that was not open to them in imposing a non-suspended term of imprisonment. The court considered whether the sentencing judge appropriately took into account all relevant factors, including the appellant's history of similar offences, the need for general deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court also examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in all the circumstances.
The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the possibility of suspending the term of imprisonment, which was a discretion available to them. The court held that the decision not to suspend the term was not open, as it did not properly weigh the appellant's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the appellant's otherwise good character and the availability of alternative sentencing options. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the appellant was resentenced.
The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge exercised a discretion that was not open to them in imposing a non-suspended term of imprisonment. The court considered whether the sentencing judge appropriately took into account all relevant factors, including the appellant's history of similar offences, the need for general deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court also examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in all the circumstances.
The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the possibility of suspending the term of imprisonment, which was a discretion available to them. The court held that the decision not to suspend the term was not open, as it did not properly weigh the appellant's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the appellant's otherwise good character and the availability of alternative sentencing options. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the appellant was resentenced.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal upheld
Appellant resentenced
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.