D'Costa v Roe

In D'Costa v Roe, the appellant faced charges stemming from a breach of a restraining order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the appellant contested the legality of the presumption of imprisonment mandated by section 61A of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). The appellant argued that the presumption should not apply to him because the two previous convictions that triggered the mandatory imprisonment were both issued on the same day. The State sought to enforce the presumption, contending that the statutory language did not exclude situations where multiple breaches occurred simultaneously.

The court was tasked with interpreting the statutory language of section 61A, focusing on whether the plain meaning of the words indicated that the presumption of imprisonment should apply irrespective of the timing of the previous convictions. Additionally, the court had to consider the legislative intent behind the mandatory imprisonment provision and whether it aligned with the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The appellant's legal team submitted that applying the presumption in such circumstances would contravene the fundamental principles of justice and fairness.

The court found in favour of the appellant, determining that the plain language of section 61A did not explicitly include scenarios where multiple breaches occurred on the same day. The court held that the legislative intent behind the mandatory imprisonment provision was to deter repeated breaches, not to impose disproportionate penalties. By setting aside the appellant's sentence of imprisonment, the court allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be resentenced, ensuring that the outcome was consistent with the principles of justice and fairness.