WINMAR -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 363

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 363
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:28/2000	Heard:	10 APRIL & 16 AUGUST 2000
Coram:	IPP J WALLWORK J WHEELER J	Delivered:	22/11/00
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	No disparity Application for leave to appeal refused
PDF Version

Parties:	IAN FRANK WINMAR THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Robbery Parity Co-offender received lesser sentence than applicant Applicant had prior convictions for serious offences Co-offender did not Backgrounds dissimilar
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606 Goddard v R [1999] WASCA 281 Hall v R [1999] WASCA 176 Romero v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950351; 11 July 1995 Thomson v Owen (1998) 105 A Crim R 150

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WINMAR -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 363 CORAM : IPP J

WALLWORK J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 10 APRIL & 16 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 22 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 28 of 2000 BETWEEN : IAN FRANK WINMAR

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Robbery - Parity - Co-offender received lesser sentence than applicant - Applicant had prior convictions for serious offences - Co-offender did not - Backgrounds dissimilar

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

No disparity

Application for leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr J A Sutherland

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms J A Girdham

Solicitors:

Applicant : McDonald & Sutherland

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606

Case(s) also cited:

Goddard v R [1999] WASCA 281
Hall v R [1999] WASCA 176
Romero v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950351; 11 July 1995
Thomson v Owen (1998) 105 A Crim R 150

(Page 3)

1 IPP J: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons proposed by the Hon Justice Wallwork. I am in agreement with those reasons and have nothing further to add.

2 WALLWORK J: The applicant in this matter was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment on 9 February 2000 after he had been convicted of a robbery with a female co-accused. The sentence took into account a period of 6 months, which the applicant had spent in custody prior to sentencing. He was given 9 months credit for that 6 months in custody. The sentence therefore was, in effect, a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. It was ordered to take effect on the expiration of a sentence he was then serving. The learned sentencing Judge said that had it not been for certain matters in mitigation, he would have sentenced the applicant to a term of 5 years' imprisonment.

3 On the same day the applicant's co-accused was sentenced to a term of 18…

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 Winmar v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Winmar v The Queen [2000] WASCA 363
Case: [2000] WASCA 363
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Winmar v The Queen involved the appellant, Winmar, who was sentenced for his involvement in a robbery. He sought to appeal his sentence, arguing that it was excessive compared to the sentence received by his co-offender, who had no prior convictions. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's sentence was disproportionate when compared to the sentence of his co-offender, and whether there was a requirement for parity in sentencing between co-offenders.

The High Court considered whether there was an obligation to ensure parity in sentencing between co-offenders, particularly when one offender had a significantly different background and criminal history compared to the other. The court examined the principles of sentencing and the need for individualised justice, taking into account the specific circumstances of each offender. It was determined that while the appellant's prior convictions for serious offences warranted a harsher sentence, there was no requirement for absolute parity between co-offenders. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the differences in the backgrounds and culpability of the offenders in determining the sentences.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not disproportionate when compared to the sentence of his co-offender. The court rejected the argument that there was a requirement for parity in sentencing between co-offenders, emphasising the importance of individualised justice and the need to consider each offender's specific circumstances. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the sentence imposed on the appellant was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

No disparity

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.