Brady v Walton - [1999] WASCA 98

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: BRADY -v- WALTON [1999] WASCA 98

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 13 JULY 1999

DELIVERED : 13 JULY 1999

FILE NO/S: SJA 1063 of 1999

BETWEEN: TROY DAVID BRADY
Appellant
AND
ANTHONY CRAIG WALTON
Respondent

Catchwords:

Sentence - Whether time spent in custody taken into account - No new principle - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995(WA) s 87

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr M F Rynne
Respondent: Ms S M De Maio

Solicitors:

Appellant: Young & Young
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Ratcliff v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980651; 3 November 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Hayes v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950714C; 21 December 1995
Leslie v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940080; 21 February 1994
R v Clarke & Coulton (1996) 87 A Crim R 441
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Lambley (1989) 40 A Crim R 430
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386

McKECHNIE J: This is an appeal against sentence on the single ground that when the learned Stipendiary Magistrate imposed a term of imprisonment for various offences for a period of 18 months with eligibility for parole, he erred in law and his sentencing discretion miscarried in that he failed to properly exercise his discretion to take into account the time the appellant spent in custody prior to sentencing on 23 March 1999 or, alternatively, to exercise the discretion to allow the appellant credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing on 23 March 1999.

The Offences

The offences revolved around what appears to be an obsessional relationship the appellant had with a young woman.
The appellant pleaded guilty to a series of offences as follows:
"2nd August 1998
1.At Busselton damaged household furniture to the total value of $508 the property of Tracy Lee SLOAN.
2.At Busselton assaulted Tracy Lee SLOAN and thereby did her bodily harm.
15 August 1998
3.At Busselton assaulted Tracey Lee SLOAN.
22 August 1998
4.At Brunswick Junction damaged one glass window of Holden Camira Sedan valued at $60 the property of Tracy Lee SLOAN.
5.Having been personally served with a Violence Restraining Order breached that Order by assaulting Tracy Lee SLOAN thereby causing bodily harm.
6.At Brunswick Junction having been personally served with a Violence Restraining Order breached that Order by approaching within 30 metres of the protected person.
7.At Brunswick Junction unlawfully assaulted Tracy Lee SLOAN and thereby did her bodily harm.
27 October 1998
8.At Busselton having been personally served with a Violence Restraining Order breached that Order by attending the house of Tracy Lee SLOAN while Tracy Lee SLOAN was present.
4 November 1998
9.At Busselton having been personally served with a Violence Restraining Order breached that Order by communicating with the person protected.
5 November 1998
10.Having been personally served with a violence restraining order breached that order…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brady v Walton and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] WASCA 98
Decision Date: 13 JULY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brady v Walton, the respondent, Brady, brought an application against the appellant, Walton, seeking a review of a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was whether the time spent in custody by the respondent prior to sentencing should be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the decision of the Court of Appeal of Queensland.

The legal issue before the court was whether the time spent in custody by the respondent prior to sentencing could be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. The court was asked to consider whether the Court of Appeal of Queensland had correctly applied the relevant principles in this regard. The court needed to determine whether the Court of Appeal had overlooked the importance of considering the time spent in custody and whether the Court of Appeal had applied a new principle in this regard.

The court found that the Court of Appeal of Queensland had not overlooked the importance of considering the time spent in custody by the respondent. The court held that the question of whether time spent in custody should be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence turned on the particular facts of the case. The court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the relevant principles and had not overlooked the importance of considering the time spent in custody. The court also held that there was no new principle in this regard and that the question turned on the own facts of the case.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the Court of Appeal of Queensland had correctly applied the relevant principles in determining the appropriate sentence and had not overlooked the importance of considering the time spent in custody by the respondent. The court held that there was no new principle in this regard and that the question turned on the own facts of the case. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland was upheld.

Orders