Legal Research
Cases
Boult v WILLIAMS

Boult v WILLIAMS

Case [2019] WASC 98 26 March 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   BOULT -v- WILLIAMS [2019] WASC 98
CORAM:   ACTING JUSTICE STRK
HEARD:   5 MARCH 2019
DELIVERED          :   5 MARCH 2019
PUBLISHED           :   26 MARCH 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1132 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CALLUM JOSEPH BOULT
Appellant
AND
GARY WILLIAMS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE G A BENN
File Number            :   GN 3805 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Appeal by offender - Offence committed by a police officer while on duty - Whether the learned magistrate erred by concluding that a term of imprisonment, suspended, was the only appropriate disposition - Application for spent conviction

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Sentencing Act 2005 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Spent conviction granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	L B Black
Respondent	:	J F W Cardell-Oliver

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Burkhart v Bradley [2013] NTCA 5; (2013) NTLR 79
Drage v Pitts [2007] WASC 203
Evans v Richards [2015] WASC 53
Greenfield v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 29
Johnson v Ayling [2013] WASC 312
M v O'Neill [2013] WASC 187; (2013) 230 A Crim R 511
Nguyen v Comptroller-General of Customs [2018] WASCA 170
R v Hirst [2013] SASCFC 54; (2013) 116 SASR 300
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
Waters v Page [2011] WASC 31
Whitelaw v O'Sullivan [2010] QCA 366

ACTING JUSTICE STRK:

(These reasons were delivered extemporaneously at the conclusion of the hearing. They have been edited from the transcript to correct matters of grammar and so as to include complete references in the form of footnotes.)

Introduction

This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault contrary to Criminal Code (WA) s 313(1)(b). The facts of the offending are not contentious and are conveniently summarised in the respondent's submissions filed on 12 February 2019.
The appellant is a police officer. On 26 July 2018, the appellant was assisting with the search for, and apprehension of, a number of escapees from Greenough Regional Prison.
At approximately 8.30 am, Bradley Mark Silvester, one of the escapees, was found hiding in bushes and was arrested and handcuffed by officers other than the appellant. While Mr Silvester was being escorted away with the appellant walking in front of him, the appellant turned and punched him in the forehead, unprovoked, causing slight redness and swelling. Mr Silvester did not require medical treatment. There is drone footage of the incident.[1]
[1] Respondent's submissions filed 12 February 2019 pars 3 ‑ 4; ts 3 (18 October 2018).
As a result of the incident the appellant was charged with common assault. The appellant pleaded guilty at the first mention on 18 October 2018 and was sentenced to 7…

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 Boult v WILLIAMS

Details

AGLC: Boult v WILLIAMS [2019] WASC 98
Case: [2019] WASC 98
Decision Date: 26 MARCH 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Boult versus Williams, the Court of Appeal was presented with an appeal against the sentence handed down by a magistrate. The appellant, a police officer, had been found guilty of a criminal offence committed while on duty. The primary issue before the court was whether the magistrate had erred in determining that a term of imprisonment, suspended, was the only appropriate disposition for the offence. The appellant argued that a different sentence, such as a fine, would have been more suitable.

The court considered the relevant legal principles and precedents concerning the sentencing of police officers found guilty of criminal offences. The court noted that the gravity of the offence, the appellant's position as a police officer, and the need to uphold public confidence in the police force were key factors to be taken into account. The court also examined the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing. Ultimately, the court concluded that the magistrate had exercised their discretion appropriately and had not erred in imposing a term of imprisonment, suspended, as the sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the police force and the need to ensure that police officers who commit criminal offences are held accountable. The court found that the magistrate had appropriately balanced the relevant considerations and had not erred in imposing the sentence. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court in relation to the appeal. However, the appellant was granted leave to apply for a spent conviction in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Orders