Brighton v RSPCA NSW - [2022] NSWSC 957

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brighton v RSPCA NSW [2022] NSWSC 957
Hearing dates: 12 July 2022
Decision date: 13 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
(1) The sentence imposed on the plaintiff on 11 July 2022 by Magistrate Degnan be stayed until the determination of the appeal to this Court that was commenced by a summons filed by the plaintiff on 7 March 2022.
(2) The plaintiff is to be released by the second defendant, namely, the New South Wales Commissioner of Corrective Services, forthwith.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeal and review – Appeal from Local Court to Supreme Court – where plaintiff convicted and sentenced for two counts of serious cruelty to a dog in the Local Court – where plaintiff sentenced to a term of imprisonment – where Magistrate previously refused to grant stay of execution of sentence – whether stay of execution of plaintiff’s sentence in Local Court should be granted pending determination of Supreme Court appeal
CRIME – Appeal and review – Appeal from Local Court to Supreme Court – where plaintiff filed summons appealing conviction in Local Court – where plaintiff’s summons did not seek leave to appeal – where application for stay of execution of sentence before Duty Judge – for purposes of s 63(2)(b) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), what is required to determine whether the plaintiff’s appeal is “the subject of an application for leave” – whether Court must determine if grant of leave to appeal will be required

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 62, 65, 66
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 530
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 63
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 71

Cases Cited:
Brighton v Will [2020] NSWSC 435
Brighton v Will (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 925
Will v Brighton (2020) 104 NSWLR 170; [2020] NSWCA 355
Will v Brighton (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 8

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Daniel Brighton (Plaintiff)
RSPCA NSW (First Defendant)
Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M McHugh SC (Plaintiff)
M Higgins (First Defendant)
Submitting Appearance (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gibson Howlin Lawyers (Plaintiff)
RSPCA NSW (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/65774
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Date of Decision:

11 July 2022

Before:

Degnam LCM

File Number(s):

2018/96298

Ex tempore Judgment – revised

HIS HONOUR: By a notice of motion filed in Court by leave on 12 July 2022, the plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to s 71 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) and that he be released from custody “pending any other lawful order of the Court or another Court having jurisdiction to make any order of detention”. The defendant is Natalie Will, in her capacity as an Inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW (“the RSPCA”), who was the prosecutor of the charges…

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 [2022] NSWSC 957
Case: [2022] NSWSC 957
Decision Date: 13 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brighton v RSPCA NSW, the plaintiff, Mr. Brighton, was convicted and sentenced in the Local Court for two counts of serious cruelty to a dog. Following this conviction, Mr. Brighton sought to appeal his sentence to the Supreme Court. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the Supreme Court should grant a stay of execution of the sentence imposed by the Local Court, pending the determination of the appeal. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether Mr. Brighton's appeal was "the subject of an application for leave" under section 63(2)(b) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW).

The Supreme Court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the correct interpretation of "the subject of an application for leave." The court held that the term did not require the Court to decide whether leave to appeal would ultimately be granted. Instead, the court found that it was sufficient for the appeal to be lodged and the application for a stay of execution to be made before the Duty Judge. The Supreme Court granted the stay of execution of the sentence, allowing Mr. Brighton to await the outcome of the appeal without serving the custodial sentence imposed by the Local Court.

As a result of this decision, Mr. Brighton was granted a stay of execution of his sentence in the Local Court pending the determination of his appeal to the Supreme Court. The court did not require the plaintiff to seek leave to appeal before granting the stay of execution, as it found that the appeal was "the subject of an application for leave" once the appeal had been lodged and the stay application was made before the Duty Judge.

Orders