BASSETT -v- BOARD [2011] WASC 317

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASC 317
Case No:	SJA:1071/2011	Heard:	27 OCTOBER 2011
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	27/10/11
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal against first sentence allowed Appeals against second and third convictions dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CAITLYN ELIZABETH BASSETT MARIA CLARE BOARD DESLEA PATRICIA SLOAN JASON ANTHONY KIMBER
Catchwords:	Road traffic Driving under suspension Appropriate penalty Courts and judges First conviction regular No miscarriage in penalties for subsequent convictions
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
Case References:	DPP v TY (No 2) (2009) 24 VR 705 Lynch v Hargrave [1971] VR 99 The Commissioner for Railways New South Wales v Cavanough (1935) 53 CLR 220 Tubbs v Pomykaj [2009] WASC 379

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : BASSETT -v- BOARD [2011] WASC 317 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 27 OCTOBER 2011 DELIVERED : 27 OCTOBER 2011 FILE NO/S : SJA 1071 of 2011 BETWEEN : CAITLYN ELIZABETH BASSETT

Appellant

AND

MARIA CLARE BOARD

Respondent

FILE NO/S : SJA 1072 of 2011 BETWEEN : CAITLYN ELIZABETH BASSETT

Appellant

AND

DESLEA PATRICIA SLOAN

Respondent

FILE NO/S : SJA 1078 of 2011 BETWEEN : CAITLYN ELIZABETH BASSETT

Appellant

AND

JASON ANTHONY KIMBER

Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No : SJA 1071 of 2011

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

File No : FR 9826 of 2009

For File No : SJA 1072 of 2011

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE R D YOUNG

File No : MI 11692 of 2010

For File No : SJA 1078 of 2011

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE M D WHEELER

File No : PE 11158 of 2011

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Driving under suspension - Appropriate penalty - Courts and judges - First conviction regular - No miscarriage in penalties for subsequent convictions

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)

Result:

Appeal against first sentence allowed

Appeals against second and third convictions dismissed

(Page 3)

Category: B

Representation:

SJA 1071 of 2011

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms N R Sinton

Respondent : Mr N T L John

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

SJA 1072 of 2011

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms N R Sinton

Respondent : Mr N T L John

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

SJA 1078 of 2011

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms N R Sinton

Respondent : Mr N T L John

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

(Page 4)

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

DPP v TY (No 2) (2009) 24 VR 705
Lynch v Hargrave [1971] VR 99
The Commissioner for Railways New South Wales v Cavanough (1935) 53 CLR 220
Tubbs v Pomykaj [2009] WASC 379

(Page 5)

1 McKECHNIE J: The appellant has an unfortunate…

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 Bassett v Board

Details

AGLC: Bassett v Board [2011] WASC 317
Case: [2011] WASC 317
Decision Date: 27 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with Bassett being the appellant and the Board being the respondents. The appellant was convicted of driving under suspension on three separate occasions. The appellant challenged the sentences imposed by the Magistrates' Court, claiming that they were excessive and unjust. The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the sentences imposed by the Magistrates' Court were appropriate, and if the appellant's rights were violated during the sentencing process.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to road traffic offences. The court noted that the appellant had a previous conviction for a similar offence, which indicated a pattern of behaviour. However, the court also acknowledged that the appellant's first conviction was regular, and there had been no miscarriage in the penalty imposed for that offence. The court further considered the appellant's arguments regarding the severity of the sentences for the subsequent convictions, but found that the Magistrates' Court had appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing the penalties.

The court held that the sentence imposed for the first conviction was excessive, and the appeal against that sentence was allowed. However, the appeals against the sentences for the subsequent convictions were dismissed, as the court found that the Magistrates' Court had not erred in its assessment of the appropriate penalties. The court emphasised the importance of individualised sentencing and the need to consider the circumstances of each case, as well as the offender's history and character.

The court ordered that the appeal against the first sentence be allowed, and the appellant's sentence be reduced to a fine of $300 and a suspension of his driver's licence for six months. The appeals against the sentences for the second and third convictions were dismissed, and the original penalties stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against first sentence allowed

Appeals against second and third convictions dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.