Bartlett v Scantlebury - [2000] WASCA 234

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: BARTLETT -v- SCANTLEBURY [2000] WASCA 234

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 22 AUGUST 2000

DELIVERED : 29 AUGUST 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1070 of 2000

BETWEEN: JOHN RAYMOND BARTLETT
Appellant
AND
ROBERT ANTHONY SCANTLEBURY
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Unlawful assault - Domestic violence - No residual injury of any consequence - Appellant aged 47 years, of prior good character and engaged in stable employment - Sentence of 12 months imprisonment - Set aside and fine imposed in lieu

Legislation:

Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994

Sentencing Act 1995, s 6

Result:

Appeal allowed
Sentence of imprisonment set aside
Fined $6000

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr A J Prentice
Respondent: Mr J Thompson

Solicitors:

Appellant: Edwin Abdo & Associates
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Badron v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 99099; 4 March 1999
Bosnjak v Pownall, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960048; 22 January 1996
Gallegos v R [1999] WASCA 191
Kenny v Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990113; 12 March 1999

Case(s) also cited:

Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665

MILLER J: The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions, Bunbury that on 25 December 2000 (sic) 1999 at Bunbury he unlawfully assaulted one Karen Jane Michi. A statement of material facts supplied to the appellant particularised the offence alleged in the following terms:
"SUMMARY OF OFFENCE
In this instance the defendant and complainant have been in a defacto relationship for the past 6 years.
At about 8.00 pm on Saturday the 25th of December 1999, the complainant and Defendant have returned home to 21 William Street, Bunbury after having a domestic dispute at an associates house.
On returning home the dispute has continued with the defendant squeezing the complainants arms and pulling her hair, as she has attempted to leave the house.
The complainant has pulled the defendant (sic) beard in order to have him release his grip."
It will be observed from the statement of material facts that the assault alleged was the squeezing of the complainant's arms and the pulling of her hair. Whilst it might be argued that these were two separate assaults, the incidents were alleged to have occurred simultaneously and thus constituted the one alleged offence.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter was heard in the Court of Petty Sessions at Bunbury on 20 April 2000. Evidence was given by the complainant that on Christmas Day 1999 things began abnormally. Instead of a "normal Christmas Day" with the giving and unwrapping of presents, she and the appellant, with whom she had been in a de facto relationship for some six years, left with one of the complainant's sons for Harvey. The appellant had apparently begun drinking before 9.30 am and before the party had left Bunbury, and this drinking continued throughout the day at two…

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 Bartlett v Scantlebury

Details

AGLC: Bartlett v Scantlebury [2000] WASCA 234
Case: [2000] WASCA 234
Decision Date: 29 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bartlett v Scantlebury involved the appellant who was convicted of unlawful assault and domestic violence. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the lower court, which was a 12-month imprisonment term. The appellant was 47 years old, had a prior good character, and was engaged in stable employment. There were no residual injuries of any consequence from the assault. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal, which was required to determine whether the original sentence was appropriate or if a different penalty should be imposed.

The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to domestic violence and assault cases. It was necessary to evaluate the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the appellant, and the impact of the sentence on him. The court also had to weigh the need for deterrence and the rehabilitation of the offender against the potential harm caused to the victim. Given that there were no lasting injuries, the court had to balance these factors to determine the most suitable punishment.

The court found that the original sentence of imprisonment was excessive given the circumstances of the case. The appellant had no prior criminal history, was of good character, and was gainfully employed. The court considered that a fine would serve as an adequate deterrent and would not unduly impact the appellant's employment or financial stability. The court set aside the original sentence and imposed a fine in its place. This decision reflected a nuanced approach to sentencing, taking into account the specific circumstances of the appellant and the nature of the offence.

Orders