Mills v WA

[2007] WASCA 118

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Robbery in company
4. › Use of actual violence
5. › Drug debt enforcement
6. › Role of enforcer
7. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
8. › Relevance of offender's personal circumstances and rehabilitation
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Totality principle
4. › Application where offender serving sentence for other offences
5. › Relevance of delay in trial proceedings to totality
6. › Whether sentencing judge failed to apply totality principle
7. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 87
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Delay
4. › Delay between offence and trial
5. › Rehabilitation during period of delay
6. › Whether delay and rehabilitation should be taken into account in sentencing
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity
4. › Co-offenders sentenced by same judge
5. › Whether disparity in sentences gives rise to justifiable sense of grievance

Quick Take

Where trial delays cause an offender to remain in custody beyond their parole eligibility date on other offences, the sentencing judge must take that additional time into account under the totality principle, even though s 87 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) does not apply. The range for robbery in company in WA is approximately 2 to 4 years after transitional provisions. When sentencing co-offenders where one has been convicted of additional offences, the proper approach is to identify appropriate sentences for each offence, reflect additional culpability through cumulation, and then address totality — not simply to discount the co-offender's sentence by a fixed amount.