Application for leave to admit further evidence granted Appeal upheld Appellant to be resentenced
B
PDF Version
Parties:
GIULIANO CESARIO ALMONTE DEBORAH BESWICK
Catchwords:
Criminal law and sentencing Dangerous driving causing bodily harm Drag racing Offender sentenced to immediate imprisonment for 6 months and 1 day Whether sentence manifestly excessive Turns on own facts
CITATION : ALMONTE -v- BESWICK [2013] WASC 207 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 20 MAY 2013 DELIVERED : 30 MAY 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1003 of 2013 BETWEEN : GIULIANO CESARIO ALMONTE
Appellant
AND
DEBORAH BESWICK Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : CHIEF MAGISTRATE S A HEATH
File No : PE 56758 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law and sentencing - Dangerous driving causing bodily harm - Drag racing - Offender sentenced to immediate imprisonment for 6 months and 1 day - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Turns on own facts
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Almonte v Beswick
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
ALMONTE -v- BESWICK [2013] WASC 207
Case
[2013] WASC 207
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Almonte v Beswick involved the appellant, who had been convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm in relation to a drag racing incident. The primary dispute was the severity of the sentence imposed on the appellant, who was sentenced to immediate imprisonment for a period of 6 months and 1 day. The appellant challenged the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive in light of the circumstances of the case. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the original sentence was appropriate or if it should be reconsidered.
The court needed to assess the nature of the offence and the culpability of the appellant, as well as the principles of sentencing in cases of dangerous driving causing harm. The key issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or unjust, taking into account the unique facts and circumstances of the case. The court was also tasked with evaluating the proportionality of the sentence in relation to similar cases and the objectives of sentencing for such offences.
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal considered the nature of the offence and the harm caused, as well as the appellant's previous criminal record and culpability. The court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and did not reflect a fair and just outcome in light of the specific facts of the case. The court concluded that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence and the appellant's culpability, and therefore, the appeal was upheld. The appellant was to be resentenced, with the court granting the application to admit further evidence to assist in the resentencing process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to admit further evidence granted