Papworth v WA

[2017] WASCA 82

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Error of fact by sentencing judge
5. › Whether different sentences should have been imposed
6. › Whether sentencing error was material to sentence
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(4)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Reckless driving in circumstances of aggravation
4. › Fleeing police pursuit
5. › Totality principle
6. › Whether total effective sentence within available range
7. › Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), ss 60(1), 60(4), 60(5)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Assault on public officer in circumstances of aggravation
4. › Armed with dangerous weapon
5. › Criminal Code (WA), ss 318(1)(d), 318(1)(l)(i)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Additional evidence on appeal
4. › Power to admit additional evidence
5. › Whether additional evidence would have led to different sentence
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 40(1)(e)

Quick Take

A sentencing judge's factual error in characterising a collision as a 'deliberate ramming' that endangered occupants does not necessarily require resentencing where the overall seriousness of the offending, including a prolonged high-speed pursuit while intoxicated and throwing a tomahawk at a police officer, supports the total effective sentence imposed. The case provides a sentencing comparator of 3 years' total effective imprisonment for combined offences of reckless driving in circumstances of aggravation (fleeing police), assault on a public officer while armed with a dangerous weapon, and obstructing a public officer.