CAMPBELL and LOUIS (SENTENCING) - [2021] FCWA 64

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: CAMPBELL and LOUIS (SENTENCING) [2021] FCWA 64
CORAM: MONCRIEFF J
HEARD: 10 MARCH 2021 & WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
DELIVERED : 15 APRIL 2021
FILE NO/S: PTW 4513 of 2009
BETWEEN: MS CAMPBELL
Applicant
AND
MR LOUIS
Respondent

Catchwords:

CONTEMPT – Sentencing – where a period of served imprisonment is ordered

COSTS – Where an order for costs is warranted – lump sum ordered

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr R Hooper SC
Respondent	:	Self Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	FMD Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	Self Represented Litigant

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

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Michalik [2004] NSWSC 1259
Campbell and Louis (Contempt) [2021] FCWA 34
Campbell and Louis [2018] FCWA 113
Myers and Myers (2006) FLC 93‑291
Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (1999) 198 CLR 435
Schwarzkopff and Schwarzkopff (1992) FLC 92-303
Tate & Tate (No 3) (2003) FLC 93‑138

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Campbell and Louis has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 243(8)(g) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

1On 10 March 2021 I delivered reasons (Campbell and Louis (Contempt) [2021] FCWA 34) for my findings that 14 of 15 alleged acts of contempt of the Court had been committed by [Mr Louis] (“the respondent”) and further, that the contraventions of orders found as proven to the requisite standard involved a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court as required by s 234 of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) (“the Act”).
2It is assumed for the purposes of these reasons that the reader has read and is familiar with those reasons.
3I must now determine the sentence to be imposed upon the respondent.
4The Court may punish a person for contempt “despite any other law” as provided by s 234(2). Accordingly, the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) do not apply.
5The Court may punish the contempt by committal to prison or fine or both as provided by s 234(4). (Throughout these reasons, unless otherwise specified, all errors and emphasis in extracts are as in original).
(4)Where a natural person is in contempt of a court, the court may punish the contempt by committal to prison or fine or both.

6Section 234 of the Act provides in subsections 6 and 7 that:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a court may make an order for —
(a)punishment on terms;
(b)suspension of punishment; or
(c)the giving of security for good behaviour.

(7)Where a person is…

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 CAMPBELL and LOUIS (SENTENCING)

Details

AGLC: CAMPBELL and LOUIS (SENTENCING) [2021] FCWA 64
Case: [2021] FCWA 64
Decision Date: 15 APRIL 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell and Louis involved a dispute over sentencing in relation to contempt of court. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendants, Campbell and Louis, who were found guilty of contempt of court. The defendants were also required to pay costs, and the court had to determine the appropriate amount and form of costs to be paid.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of the appropriate sentence for the offence of contempt, considering the gravity and nature of the offence, as well as any mitigating or aggravating factors. Additionally, the court had to assess whether an order for costs was warranted and, if so, determine the appropriate amount and form of costs to be imposed on the defendants. The court needed to balance the need for deterrence and punishment with the principles of proportionality and justice in sentencing.

In its reasoning, the court considered the severity and impact of the defendants' actions that led to the contempt charge. The court also took into account the defendants' previous criminal records, their conduct during the trial, and any mitigating circumstances. The court found that a period of imprisonment was necessary to adequately address the contempt and to serve as a deterrent to others. The court ordered a specific term of imprisonment for each defendant, reflecting the seriousness of their actions. Furthermore, the court determined that an order for costs was warranted and set a lump sum for the defendants to pay, considering the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the prosecution.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for each defendant, with specific terms for each. Additionally, the court ordered the defendants to pay a lump sum as costs, reflecting the expenses incurred by the prosecution in bringing the case to trial.

Orders