Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Legal Case Law Assignment

9 Pages2045 Words136 Views
   

Added on  2020-02-24

Legal Case Law Assignment

   Added on 2020-02-24

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Running head: LEGAL ANALYSISLegal AnalysisName of the StudentName of UniversityAuthor Note
Legal Case Law Assignment_1
1LEGAL ANALYSISQuestion 1 The appellant in the case of R v Robertson [2017] QCA 1641 had pleaded guilty inrelation to attempting arson. The appellant had been sentenced for a period of two and a halfyears by the district court because of the attempted arson and other offences which had beenidentified in his act. It was appealed by the appellant that the judge of the lower court was notaccurate towards determining the appropriate sentence for the crime, and the judge analyzed theseriousness of the crime much more that it actually was as pleaded by the appellant. It wasfurther submitted by the appellant that the sentencing judges was also incorrect towardsimposing the sentence based on the findings that the appellant had torched the house of her ex-landlord. The question before the court of appeal was that whether the sentencing judge hadmade an inaccurate judgment in relation to the case. It was further submitted by the judge madean error towards the imposition of a parole release date without discussing it with the defensecouncil that they were considering such actions and such actions did not allow the appellant togain natural justice as his counsel could have been a submission before the court that why noparole is granted. Thus the court of appeal had to consider whether or not this was an error on thepart of the district judge. It was further submitted by the appellant that the judge did not take into considerationthat a sentence has to be provided as the last resort and no consideration was made in the part ofthe judge to partly or wholly suspend the judgment. In addition it was provided by the appellantthat the consideration made on the part of the judge that an actual sentence was required for thepurpose of setting an example to the community in relation to the behavior of the appellant wasalso incorrect as the judge did not considered that the requirement for specifically providing the1[2017] QCA 164
Legal Case Law Assignment_2
2LEGAL ANALYSISsentence was not high. The judge further did not consider other sentencing options for theappellant. The question before the court of appeal was that whether the judge should haveconsidered that the sentence should be the last resort. Thus the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant pleaded guilty to attemptedarson, He was sentenced for two and a half years in jail for attempted arson, Sentence was forattempted arson and other concurrent offences like trespass and theft and fraud, the court tookthe offence more seriously than it actually was and the sentence provided by the court wasexcessive manifestly2.Question 2 The themes in which the grounds of appeal was set out in are Mischaracterization of theapplicant’s criminality, Failure to afford procedural fairness, Prison a last resort and Manifestexcess of the punishment3. Question 3.Philippides JAThe judge admitted present case was less serious than Silasack and Rhode4. She agreeswith trial judge regarding the seriousness of this offence comparing the offences to other caseswhere similar or more punishment was given5. The judge agreed to the findings related to arson2[2017] QCA 164 [15-23]3[2017] QCA 164 at 124[2017] QCA 164 at [4-5]5[2017] QCA 164 at [8]
Legal Case Law Assignment_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Comparables for Sheldon's case in Applewaite - Desklib
|1
|571
|134

Anthony Barton's Submissions in the High Court of Australia
|9
|3824
|146

Leeth v Commonwealth: Case Summary and Analysis
|7
|2859
|270

WILLIAMS v. NEW YORK No. 671 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 2 Fed. Sen R. 151 337 U.S. 241 June 6, 1949
|5
|823
|82

Case Study Analysis: R v HEVKO [2018] SASCFC 22
|6
|1410
|464

R vs. SMITH [2003] QCA 76; 138 A Crim R 172
|5
|962
|63