ZAHRA -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 348

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 348
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:171/2002	Heard:	4 DECEMBER 2002
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	16/12/02
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DAVID ANTHONY ZAHRA THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Stealing with violence Whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Wood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 95

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ZAHRA -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 348 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

STEYTLER J

TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD : 4 DECEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 16 DECEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 171 of 2002 BETWEEN : DAVID ANTHONY ZAHRA

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Stealing with violence - Whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms C S Amsden

Respondent : Mr K P Bates

Solicitors:

Applicant : Legal Aid of Western Australia

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Wood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 95

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 1 August 2002 the applicant was convicted of one count of stealing with violence. On 30 August 2002 he was sentenced to a term of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment, backdated to 21 May 2002, upon which date he had been taken into custody. He was made eligible for parole. He has applied for leave to appeal against that sentence.

2 In his grounds of appeal the applicant raised only one ground, being to the effect that a sentence of imprisonment to be served immediately was not the only appropriate sentence. However, during the course of the appeal, counsel for the applicant amended the grounds of appeal to raise a contention that the term of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment imposed upon the applicant was manifestly excessive in the circumstances. In the end, that was the only ground which was pursued.

3 The circumstances of the offence were somewhat unusual. During the afternoon on 13 May 2002 the applicant drove his vehicle into a service station in George Street, Kalgoorlie and there filled it up with 60 litres of unleaded petrol. Having done so, he poured some petrol from the bowser onto the ground. He then moved his vehicle and parked it nearby. He walked…

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 Zahra v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Zahra v The Queen [2002] WASCA 348
Case: [2002] WASCA 348
Decision Date: 16 DECEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zahra v The Queen involved the appellant who was convicted of stealing with violence. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment, and the issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, the final appellate court in the Australian judicial system.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. This required the court to consider the principles of sentencing in the context of the specific facts of the case. The court needed to assess whether the sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, taking into account the appellant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the deterrent effect of the sentence.

The court determined that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The reasoning focused on the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the offence committed. The court held that the sentence imposed was disproportionate when considering the nature of the crime and the need for general deterrence. The severity of the punishment did not align with the principles of justice and proportionality, leading to the conclusion that the sentence was excessive. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the application for leave to appeal was granted.

The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed. This decision highlights the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the role of the High Court in ensuring that sentences are just and proportionate to the crimes committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

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.