Wilkie v WA

[2005] WASCA 156

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Stealing as a servant
4. › Managerial position of trust
5. › 102 counts involving in excess of $1.5 million
6. › Whether total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment excessive
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 378(7)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Sentencing methodology
4. › Multiple counts
5. › Whether sentencing judge must fix appropriate sentence for each count before considering cumulation and totality
6. › Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Compensation orders
4. › Whether compensation order should be made where civil proceedings on foot
5. › Whether offender's inability to pay relevant
6. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 115, 117(1), 119
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Principles of appellate review of sentencing discretion
5. › Whether sentence within range open to sentencing judge
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(3)

Quick Take

A sentencing judge's failure to fix appropriate sentences for each individual count before considering cumulation and totality (contrary to Pearce v The Queen) does not necessarily vitiate the sentence if the overall result and each individual sentence fall within the permissible range. For stealing as a servant involving over $1.5 million by a trusted manager over eight years, 5 years' imprisonment is within range. Compensation orders under s 117(1) of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) may be made even where civil proceedings are on foot and the offender has no means to pay, as the statutory scheme prevents double compensation.