Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Wale v The Queen

(2001) 126 A Crim R 370; [2001] WASCA 418

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Discount for guilty plea
5. › Distinction between fast-track guilty plea and early plea not on fast-track system
6. › Whether discount of 22 per cent was adequate
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Manifest excess
5. › Armed robbery with loaded firearm
6. › Head sentence of 18 years for nine robbery offences
7. › Whether manifestly excessive
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Remorse
5. › Letters of apology to victims
6. › Whether sentencing judge failed to give adequate credit
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Prospects of rehabilitation
5. › Extensive criminal record
6. › Offences committed while serving suspended sentence
7. › Whether parole eligibility order adequately reflected rehabilitation prospects

Quick Take

A fast-track guilty plea and an early guilty plea not on the fast-track system attract different levels of sentencing discount: the 25-35% discount range established in Little v The Queen for fast-track pleas does not automatically apply to early non-fast-track pleas. A discount of approximately 22% may be appropriate for an early non-fast-track plea where the Crown case is strong and co-operation is limited. Drug-related duress claims carry little mitigatory weight where the offender had other options and approached the criminal conduct with enthusiasm.