Legal Research
Cases
Bryant v Witts

Bryant v Witts

Case [2018] WASC 194 27 June 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   BRYANT -v- WITTS [2018] WASC 194
CORAM:   DERRICK J
HEARD:   25 JUNE 2018
DELIVERED          :   27 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1009 of 2018
BETWEEN:   SHANNON DANIEL BRYANT
Appellant
AND
THOMAS WITTS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE B C GLUESTEIN
File Number            :   PE 10152 of 2017, PE 10153 of 2017, PE 10154 of 2017, PE 10155 of 2017, PE 10156 of 2017, PE 10157 of 2017, PE 10158 of 2017

Catchwords:

Appeal against sentence - Sentence of immediate imprisonment imposed - Whether term imposed manifestly excessive - Whether wrong type of sentence imposed

Legislation:

Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Extension of time within which to appeal granted
Application for leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr P W Catalano
Respondent	:	Mr B M Murray

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Paul Catalano
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Forward v Bower [2007] WASC 205
Gillespie v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 215
Juma v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 54
Krijestorac v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 35
Leckie v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 91
Mason v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 43
Morgan v Kazandis [2010] WASC 377; (2010) 206 A Crim R 235
Page v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 76
Paskov v Hull [2008] WASC 163
Pureau v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 115
Quigley v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 9
Salkilld v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 168
Samson v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 173
Wiltshire v Mafi [2010] WASCA 111
Zinga v Johnson [2012] WASC 216

DERRICK J:

Introduction

The appellant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal and leave to appeal a total sentence of 22 months immediate imprisonment imposed by a magistrate on 22 November 2017 for two offences of aggravated unlawful assault contrary to s 313(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA) (Code) (charges PE 10152/17 and PE 10154/17), four offences of aggravated unlawful assault causing bodily harm contrary to s 317(1)(a) of the Code (charges PE 10153/17, PE 10155/17, PE 10156/17 and PE 10157/17), and one offence of cruelty to an animal causing it unnecessary harm contrary to s 19(1) and s 19(2)(e) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) (charge PE 10158/17). The relevant aggravating circumstance for each of the unlawful assault and unlawful assault causing bodily harm offences was that the appellant was in a family and domestic relationship with the complainant.[1]
[1] Code, s 221(1)(a).
The pleaded grounds of appeal are as follows:
1.The total effective sentence of 22 months immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances and infringed the first limb of…

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 Bryant v Witts

Details

AGLC: Bryant v Witts [2018] WASC 194
Case: [2018] WASC 194
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bryant v Witts was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant, Bryant, was convicted of two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two counts of wounding with intent. Bryant appealed against the sentence of immediate imprisonment imposed by the primary judge, arguing that the term was manifestly excessive and that the wrong type of sentence was imposed. The appeal was heard by a panel of three judges, who considered the arguments presented by both parties.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the wrong type of sentence was imposed. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and examined the factors relevant to determining the appropriate sentence in this case. The court also considered the submissions made by both parties on the appropriate sentence and the arguments regarding the type of sentence imposed.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the primary judge had considered all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also found that the primary judge had imposed the correct type of sentence, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for punishment and deterrence. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the primary judge had failed to consider the appropriate sentence and that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the offences committed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of immediate imprisonment was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence and the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also noted that the primary judge had considered the appropriate sentence and had imposed a sentence that was proportionate to the offences committed.

Orders