Moody-Jackamarra v WA

[2007] WASCA 7

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Aggravated burglary
4. › Whether sentence of immediate imprisonment manifestly excessive
5. › Whether offences at lowest end of spectrum for aggravated burglary
6. › Whether sentencing judge should have imposed suspended sentence or intensive supervision order
7. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 6(4), 39(2), 39(3), 76(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Deprived childhood
5. › Rehabilitation
6. › Aboriginal offender
7. › Whether adequate weight given to mitigating factors including rehabilitation
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appellate review of sentence
4. › Manifest excess
5. › Whether wrong type of sentence imposed
6. › Whether appellate court entitled to intervene
7. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

Aggravated burglary involving entry by deception rather than force, targeting elderly victims, with relatively small amounts stolen, and committed by an offender with a deprived background and demonstrated rehabilitation, may still attract a sentence of immediate imprisonment where the offences were premeditated, planned with co-offenders, and formed part of a continuing course of dishonesty. However, the dissent of Pullin JA indicates that such offences may be at the lowest end of the spectrum and that non-custodial options remain arguable in such circumstances.