"LJM" (a Child) v WA

(2005) 30 WAR 38; [2005] WASCA 172

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Dangerous driving causing death
4. › Multiple counts arising from single driving episode
5. › Whether sentences should be cumulative or concurrent
6. › One transaction rule
7. › Totality principle
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 689(3)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Multiple offences
4. › Common elements
5. › Prohibition on double punishment for common elements
6. › Pearce v The Queen principle
7. › Whether concurrent sentences of equal length doubly punish common driving element
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Application for leave to appeal against sentence
4. › Whether leave should be granted where corrected sentence produces same total result
5. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(4)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Young offenders
4. › Dangerous driving causing death
5. › Relevance of general deterrence
6. › Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA)

Quick Take

Where an offender is convicted of multiple counts of dangerous driving causing death arising from a single driving episode, wholly concurrent sentences of equal length are erroneous because they doubly punish the common element of driving. The correct approach is to impose individual sentences appropriate to each offence and then partially cumulate them to reflect overall criminality, applying the totality principle. The approach in R v Wilkins (permitting cumulation for multiple deaths from single driving) is preferred over R v Snewin (treating the matter as punishment for one incident).