WA v Popal

[2020] WASCA 200

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › State appeal against sentence
4. › Manifest inadequacy of individual sentences
5. › Offences involving discharge of firearm at motor vehicles
6. › Whether sentences unreasonable or plainly unjust
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 304(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Totality principle
4. › First limb
5. › Whether total effective sentence bore proper relationship to overall criminality
6. › Proper approach to application of totality principle
7. › Whether sentencing judge should first fix appropriate individual sentences before considering totality
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Prior good character
5. › Whether offender entitled to mitigation for prior good character where prior illicit drug use and traffic conviction
6. › Burden of proof on offender
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mandatory minimum sentences
4. › Reckless driving to escape police pursuit
5. › Whether mandatory minimum appropriate where offending not in least serious category
6. › Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), ss 60(1A), 60B(4), 60B(5)

Quick Take

A sentencing judge must first fix an appropriate sentence for each offence and then consider issues of concurrency, cumulacy and totality; reducing all individual sentences by an unspecified extent for totality before announcing them is unorthodox and creates opacity that hampers appellate review. Where there is a mandatory minimum sentence, the minimum is reserved for the least serious category of offending, and the sentencing judge must assess where the offending falls in the range between the minimum and maximum. An offender's prior good character may be understood in a limited sense as referring to character prior to a descent into illicit drug use, but the weight to be given to this factor varies according to all circumstances.