Anderson v Townsend - [2020] WASC 456

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   ANDERSON -v- TOWNSEND [2020] WASC 456
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   30 NOVEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   30 NOVEMBER 2020
PUBLISHED           :   9 DECEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1036 of 2020
BETWEEN:   VERONICA LEE ANDERSON
Appellant

AND

RYAN TOWNSEND
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE R HUSTON
File Number            :   WU 2 of 2017, WU 5 of 2017, WU 174 of 2017, WU 72 of 2018, PE 26807 of 2018, CA 262 of 2020

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Whether sentences were manifestly excessive - Whether offending had reached point of imprisonment - Whether magistrate had given appropriate consideration to lesser sentencing options - Appeal dismissed

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Whether reductions applied by magistrate objectively inconsistent - Whether implied error demonstrated - Whether any inconsistency explained by the principle of totality - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9(1), 9(2)
Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA), s 16(8)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 80

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms E Barker
Respondent	:	Mr S Pack

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Aboriginal Legal Service - Carnarvon
Respondent	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Edgill v Maguire [2013] WASC 472
Etheridge v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 152
Indich v Bracknell [2005] WASC 225
Kelly v Lockwood [2005] WASC 18
Lawson v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 129
Nguyen v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 56
Ninyette v Holmes [2015] WASC 287
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Slade v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 65
Spratt v Canavan [2006] WASC 223
The State of Western Australia v Delaney [2020] WASCA 93

TOTTLE J:

Introduction

The appellant applied for leave to appeal against a total effective sentence of 12 months imprisonment, conditionally suspended for 12 months. The sentence was imposed on 21 April 2020 following the appellant's conviction for four offences to which she had pleaded guilty. At the same hearing, under s 80 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), fines were imposed in respect of offences for which terms of suspended imprisonment had been imposed originally. At the conclusion of the hearing I refused leave to appeal and said I would publish reasons later. These are those reasons.
The offences and the sentences imposed were as follows:

Charge

Offence date

Offence

Sentence

WU 2/2017

29/12/2016

Driving while disqualified contrary to s 49(1)(a) and s 49(3)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974

$1000 fine (imposed under s 80(1) of Sentencing Act in substitution for 9 month's imprisonment suspended for 12 months)

WU 5/2017

31/12/2016

Driving while disqualified contrary to s 49(1)((a) and s 49(3)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974

$1000…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Anderson v Townsend

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Townsend [2020] WASC 456
Case: [2020] WASC 456
Decision Date: 9 DECEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved Anderson, the appellant, who sought to challenge the sentence imposed on him by Townsend, the respondent. The underlying dispute arose from Anderson's criminal activities, which led to a sentencing decision that he deemed excessive. The court of appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentence and determining whether it was manifestly excessive, whether the offending warranted imprisonment, and if the magistrate had adequately considered alternative sentencing options.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether the magistrate had properly considered lesser penalties. The court also had to examine whether the reductions applied by the magistrate were objectively inconsistent and if any inconsistency could be explained by the principle of totality. The appellant argued that the sentence was unduly harsh and that the magistrate failed to give appropriate weight to non-custodial options.

The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the magistrate had given proper consideration to the circumstances of the case, including the gravity of the offending. The court concluded that the magistrate's decision to impose imprisonment was justified, as the offending had reached a point where it warranted such a penalty. The court further found that any perceived inconsistency in the reductions applied was explained by the principle of totality, ensuring a fair and proportionate sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the sentence imposed by the magistrate. The court upheld the original sentencing decision, finding it to be within the appropriate bounds of judicial discretion and consistent with the principles of sentencing.

Orders