Nancarrow v WA

[2006] WASCA 238

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Aggregate sentence
4. › Armed robbery in company
5. › Multiple offences over six weeks
6. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
7. › Turns on own facts
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Transitional provisions
4. › Abolition of automatic remission
5. › Whether sentencing judge applied two-thirds reduction
6. › Whether express statement required
7. › Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA), Sch 1, cl 2(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity
4. › Co-offenders
5. › Different roles and circumstances
6. › Whether disparity gave rise to justifiable sense of grievance
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Totality
4. › Cumulative and concurrent sentences
5. › Multiple separate offences
6. › Whether aggregate sentence disproportionate to overall criminality

Quick Take

A sentencing judge is not required to expressly state that the transitional provisions under the Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA), Sch 1, cl 2(1) have been applied, although it is prudent to do so. The law does not require a reduction for a guilty plea to be quantified. An aggregate sentence of 8 years 3 months for five armed robberies in company over six weeks and a serious assault was not manifestly excessive.