Cooper v Sinnathamby - [2007] WASCA 32

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: COOPER (also known as PETER SIMON SERVEND) -v- SINNATHAMBY & ANOR [2007] WASCA 32

CORAM: STEYTLER P
McLURE JA
PULLIN JA

HEARD: 11 DECEMBER 2006

DELIVERED : 12 FEBRUARY 2007

FILE NO/S: CACR 6 of 2006

BETWEEN: BRADLEY DALE COOPER (also known as PETER SIMON SERVEND)
Appellant
AND
SANTHIRAMINI DEVI SINNATHAMBY
First Respondent
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :O'BRIEN DCJ
File No  :IND 1687 of 2005

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Compensation order - Relevance of capacity to pay - Whether open to make a compensation order - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 717, s 719
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 155
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 109, s 110, s 112, s 114, s 115, s 117, s 119, s 119A

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr S B Watters
First Respondent           :     Mr K S Pratt
Second Respondent      :     Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Thames Legal
First Respondent           :     Holborn Lenhoff Massey
Second Respondent      :     State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Braham [1977] VR 104
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178

STEYTLER P: I agree with McLure JA.
McLURE JA: On 31 October 2005 the appellant was convicted in the District Court at Fremantle on his own plea of guilty of wilfully and unlawfully damaging by fire a medical practice building the property of Santhiramini Devi Sinnathamby. Dr Sinnathamby is the first respondent in the appeal. The State of Western Australia is the second respondent.
The appellant was sentenced on 31 October 2005 by O'Brien DCJ who imposed an intensive supervision order for the offence, commonly described as arson. On the same date the sentencing Judge, on the application of the prosecution on behalf of Dr Sinnathamby, made an order under s 117 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) requiring the appellant to pay compensation to Dr Sinnathamby in the sum of $101,000. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the compensation order. The draft grounds of appeal in the Appeal Notice were that:
"1.The learned sentencing Judge erred in fact in finding that the victim had suffered a loss in the amount of $101,000.00 and subsequently making a compensation order in that amount.
1.1The learned sentencing Judge misapprehended the facts and alternatively was misled by the material put by the victim in support of her claim for a compensation order."
On 11 March 2006 Roberts-Smith JA granted leave to appeal on those grounds ("the original grounds") and ordered that the parties have leave to adduce further evidence in the appeal.
The grounds of appeal in the Appellant's Case go beyond the original grounds of appeal. The grounds in the Appellant's Case are as follows:
"

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 Cooper v Sinnathamby

Details

AGLC: Cooper v Sinnathamby [2007] WASCA 32
Case: [2007] WASCA 32
Decision Date: 12 FEBRUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between Cooper, the plaintiff, and Sinnathamby, the defendant, in the context of a criminal law matter. The plaintiff sought a compensation order against the defendant, with the primary issue being the relevance of the defendant's capacity to pay in determining whether such an order could be made. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the capacity of the defendant to pay was a relevant factor in the making of a compensation order. The case hinged on whether such orders were determined based on the individual circumstances of each case or if a more generalised approach was to be adopted. The court had to weigh the relevance of the defendant's financial situation against the broader principles of criminal law and the purpose of compensation orders.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the capacity of the defendant to pay was indeed a relevant factor to consider when making a compensation order. The court emphasised that such orders should be determined on the facts of each case, taking into account various factors including the defendant's financial circumstances, the nature of the crime, and the extent of the harm caused. The court acknowledged that while the defendant's ability to pay was an important consideration, it was not the sole determinant in the making of a compensation order.

The court's decision underscored the importance of a case-by-case approach in assessing compensation orders. The final orders reflected this approach, with the court carefully considering the specific circumstances of Sinnathamby's case in determining the appropriate amount of compensation to be paid to Cooper.

Orders