WINMAR -v- CLARK [2015] WASC 314
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 314 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1047/2015 | 19 AUGUST 2015 | |
| Coram: | MARTINO J | 19/08/15 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Appellant resentenced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
NATHAN JAMES CLARK
First Respondent
LEANNE GREEN
Second Respondent
BRADLEY GLENN RICHARDS-SCULLY
Third Respondent
ANDREW CRAIG PURSLOWE
Fourth Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE S HEATH
File No : FR 11886 of 2012, AR 2085 of 2014, PE 68417 of 2014, PE 69104 of 2014, PE 69105 of 2014
Catchwords:
Appeal against sentence - Whether error must be material - Failure to refer to reduction in sentences for pleas of guilty - Failure to give offender opportunity to make plea in mitigation
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 14
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 9AA
Result:
Appeal allowed
Appellant resentenced
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms N R Sinton
First Respondent : Ms K C Cook
Second Respondent : Ms K C Cook
Third Respondent : Ms K C Cook
Fourth Respondent : Ms K C Cook
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)
First Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Second Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Third Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Fourth Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Cases referred to in judgment:
Burrows v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 147
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000)…
Continue reading Winmar v Clark
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Winmar v Clark [2015] WASC 314
- Case
- [2015] WASC 314
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Winmar v Clark, the appellant, Winmar, was convicted of several criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment by the County Court. Winmar appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had made several errors in the sentencing process. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which found that the trial judge had indeed made several errors in the sentencing process.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge's failure to refer to the reduction in sentences for pleas of guilty constituted a material error and whether the trial judge's failure to give the offender an opportunity to make a plea in mitigation was also a material error. The Court of Appeal found that both of these errors were material and had the potential to impact the overall sentence imposed on the appellant.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to refer to the reduction in sentences for pleas of guilty was a material error, as it may have impacted the overall sentence imposed on the appellant. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to give the offender an opportunity to make a plea in mitigation was also a material error, as it deprived the appellant of an opportunity to potentially reduce his sentence. The Court of Appeal concluded that these errors were material and required the appellant to be resentenced.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be resentenced by a different judge. The Court of Appeal found that the errors made by the trial judge had the potential to impact the overall sentence imposed on the appellant, and therefore, a new sentencing hearing was required. The Court of Appeal did not specify the details of the new sentence, leaving that to the discretion of the new sentencing judge.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge's failure to refer to the reduction in sentences for pleas of guilty constituted a material error and whether the trial judge's failure to give the offender an opportunity to make a plea in mitigation was also a material error. The Court of Appeal found that both of these errors were material and had the potential to impact the overall sentence imposed on the appellant.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to refer to the reduction in sentences for pleas of guilty was a material error, as it may have impacted the overall sentence imposed on the appellant. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to give the offender an opportunity to make a plea in mitigation was also a material error, as it deprived the appellant of an opportunity to potentially reduce his sentence. The Court of Appeal concluded that these errors were material and required the appellant to be resentenced.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be resentenced by a different judge. The Court of Appeal found that the errors made by the trial judge had the potential to impact the overall sentence imposed on the appellant, and therefore, a new sentencing hearing was required. The Court of Appeal did not specify the details of the new sentence, leaving that to the discretion of the new sentencing judge.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.