YASSIN -v- WILLIAMS [2007] WASC 8
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASC 8 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1116/2006 | 18 DECEMBER 2006 | |
| Coram: | BLAXELL J | 11/01/07 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed and suspended term of imprisonment substituted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MOHAMED FARHAN YASSIN KEITH EDWARD WILLIAMS |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Plea of guilty to taking part in a riot Self represented 20-year-old first offender Sentence of 8 months immediate imprisonment Whether a failure to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors Whether the appellant should have been informed that a sentence of immediate imprisonment was likely and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before that sentence was imposed |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 65 |
Case References: | Caston v SA Police (2002) 132 A Crim R 11 Cooling v Steel (1971) 2 SASR 249 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315 Franks v Police [1998] SASC 6897 Mical v Ward [2003] WASCA 149 State of Western Australia v Landers (2000) 22 WAR 278 Wood v Marsh [2003] WASCA 95 Ainsworth v "D" (A Child) (1992) 7 WAR 102 Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327 Fyfe v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980142; 3 April 1998 Johnson v Hayter [2001] WASCA 118 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 R v "VC" (A Child), unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990142; 23 March 1999 R v Caird (1970) 54 Cr App R 499 R v McCormack [1981] VR 104 R v Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Ravi-Pinto v Power, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 930647; 26 November 1993 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
KEITH EDWARD WILLIAMS
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES' COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : CHIEF MAGISTRATE S A HEATH
Citation : W A POLICE SERVICE v YASSIN
File No : PE 65936 of 2006
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Plea of guilty to taking part in a riot - Self represented 20-year-old first offender - Sentence of 8 months immediate imprisonment - Whether a failure to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors - Whether the appellant should have been informed that a sentence of immediate imprisonment was likely and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before that sentence was imposed
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 65
Result:
Appeal allowed and suspended term of imprisonment substituted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R Young
Respondent : Ms T M Weston
Solicitors:
Appellant : Robert Young
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Caston v SA Police (2002) 132 A Crim R 11
Cooling…
Continue reading Yassin v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Yassin v Williams [2007] WASC 8
- Case
- [2007] WASC 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Yassin, appealed against his sentence of 8 months immediate imprisonment for his involvement in a riot. Yassin, a first offender, was 20 years old and self-represented at the time of his sentencing. He pleaded guilty to taking part in a riot. The court was asked to consider whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, particularly whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to mitigating factors, and whether the appellant should have been informed of the likely imposition of a sentence of immediate imprisonment and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before the sentence was imposed.
The court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or whether the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors. It also considered whether the appellant, as a first offender and self-represented, should have been informed of the likely imposition of a sentence of immediate imprisonment and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before the sentence was imposed. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the appellant should have been informed of the likely imposition of a sentence of immediate imprisonment and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before the sentence was imposed.
The court held that the appellant's age, lack of prior criminal history, and self-representation were significant mitigating factors that should have been given greater weight. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the appellant should have been informed of the likely imposition of a sentence of immediate imprisonment and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before the sentence was imposed. The appeal was allowed and the term of imprisonment was substituted with a suspended term of imprisonment.
The court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or whether the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors. It also considered whether the appellant, as a first offender and self-represented, should have been informed of the likely imposition of a sentence of immediate imprisonment and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before the sentence was imposed. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the appellant should have been informed of the likely imposition of a sentence of immediate imprisonment and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before the sentence was imposed.
The court held that the appellant's age, lack of prior criminal history, and self-representation were significant mitigating factors that should have been given greater weight. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the appellant should have been informed of the likely imposition of a sentence of immediate imprisonment and provided with an opportunity of legal representation before the sentence was imposed. The appeal was allowed and the term of imprisonment was substituted with a suspended term of imprisonment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed and suspended term of imprisonment substituted
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.