Brighton v RSPCA (NSW) - [2023] NSWSC 1653

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Brighton v RSPCA (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 1653
Hearing dates: 13 December 2023
Date of orders: 13 December 2023
Decision date: 13 December 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) Noting that the appeal against the conviction and/or application for leave to appeal against the conviction is withdrawn, that application or appeal is dismissed.
(2) Leave to appeal against the sentence granted.
(3) Appeal against sentence upheld and the sentence imposed by the Local Court on 11 July 2022 is set aside.
(4) In lieu thereof, the appellant is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment 2 years to be served by way of an intensive corrections order with the following conditions pursuant to ss 73 and 73A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999:
(a) The appellant must not commit any offence.
(b) The appellant must submit to supervision by a community corrections officer.
(c)The appellant must take part in a rehabilitation programme directed towards anger management.
(5) For the purpose of s 53A(2)(a), I indicate that the individual sentences I would have imposed had an aggregate sentence not been imposed are 20 months for the first offence and 12 months for the second offence.
(6) Costs reserved and the parties have leave to approach my associate with consent orders relating to costs.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – serious animal cruelty – savage attack on wild dog which attacked zookeeper’s camel – camel’s name Alice – dog’s name not known – litigation with lengthy history – concurrent intention to kill dog and to inflict severe pain – where Magistrate imposed full time prison sentence exceeding three years following summary hearing – where parties agreed two year Intensive Corrections Order appropriate – where conviction appeal withdrawn – whether concessions should be accepted – offender with impeccable history of caring for animals – no relevant criminal history – peculiar circumstances in which offences committed – offender unlikely to offend again – sentence imposed in Local Court plainly wrong and unjust – manifest excess – appeal upheld
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals form Local Court – choice of forum – factors to be considered

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1990 s 530
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 ss 11(2)(a), 12(3), 13(2), 17, 18, 19, 52, 53
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 5, 73, 73A
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 s 21(d)

Cases Cited:
Berryman v R; Wood v R [2018] NSWDC 486
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; HCA 25
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
Will v Brighton (2020) 104 NSWLR 170; [2020] NSWCA 355
Will v Brighton (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 8
Will v Brighton [2020] NSWSC 435

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Daniel Brighton (Plaintiff)
RSPCA (NSW) (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Birch SC…

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 Brighton v RSPCA (NSW)

Details

AGLC: Brighton v RSPCA (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 1653
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1653
Decision Date: 13 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Brighton v RSPCA (NSW), the appellant, Mr. Brighton, faced a charge of serious animal cruelty for an incident where he killed a wild dog that had attacked a camel belonging to a zookeeper. The camel, named Alice, was viciously mauled by the wild dog, which was not identified by name. This incident, which led to the prosecution, was part of a series of legal proceedings with a lengthy history. Mr. Brighton argued that he acted with a concurrent intention to kill the dog and to inflict severe pain. The magistrate imposed a full-time prison sentence exceeding three years after a summary hearing. However, both parties agreed that a two-year Intensive Corrections Order was appropriate. Mr. Brighton later withdrew his appeal against his conviction, but the RSPCA contested the appropriateness of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the Local Court, particularly whether the concessions made by both parties should be accepted, and whether the sentence was plainly wrong and unjust. The court had to consider factors such as Mr. Brighton's impeccable history of caring for animals, his lack of relevant criminal history, the peculiar circumstances in which the offences were committed, and the likelihood of Mr. Brighton reoffending. The court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was a manifest excess of the Local Court's sentencing jurisdiction.

After examining these factors, the court concluded that the sentence imposed by the Local Court was plainly wrong and unjust, constituting a manifest excess. The court accepted that the peculiar circumstances and Mr. Brighton's history supported a less punitive approach. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the Local Court for re-sentencing. The court considered the two-year Intensive Corrections Order to be more appropriate given the circumstances and Mr. Brighton's background.

Orders