EDGILL -v- MAGUIRE [2013] WASC 472

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 472
Published:	20/12/2013
Case No:	SJA:1140/2013	Heard:	13 DECEMBER 2013
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	13/12/13
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Sentence of imprisonment set aside Appellant re-sentenced
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RAPHAEL JOHN EDGILL BRENDAN JAMES MAGUIRE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Breach of protective bail Whether sentence of 6 months and 1 day's imprisonment was manifestly excessive Breach at lower end of seriousness
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Bropho v Harrison [2013] WASC 250 Hamlett v Whitney [2013] WASC 100 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 Sabau v The Sate of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 3 Sturt v Ball [2013] WASC 343 Veen v The Queen [1979] HCA 7; (1979) 143 CLR 458 Veen v The Queen [No 2] [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : EDGILL -v- MAGUIRE [2013] WASC 472 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 13 DECEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2013 PUBLISHED : 20 DECEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1140 of 2013 BETWEEN : RAPHAEL JOHN EDGILL

Appellant

AND

BRENDAN JAMES MAGUIRE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY

File No : PE 51308 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Breach of protective bail - Whether sentence of 6 months and 1 day's imprisonment was manifestly excessive - Breach at lower end of seriousness

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed
Sentence of imprisonment set aside
Appellant re-sentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R F Owen

Respondent : Ms R Young

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Bropho v Harrison [2013] WASC 250
Hamlett v Whitney [2013] WASC 100
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Sabau v The Sate of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 3
Sturt v Ball [2013] WASC 343
Veen v The Queen [1979] HCA 7; (1979) 143 CLR 458
Veen v The Queen [No 2] [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

HALL J

Introduction

1 On 13 December 2013 I allowed this appeal against sentence. The following are my reasons for doing so.

2 On 23 September 2013 the appellant entered a plea of guilty in the Perth Magistrates Court to one charge of failing to comply with a protective condition of a bail undertaking contrary to s 51(2a) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA). On 5 November 2013 the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and 1 day for the offence. The appellant sought leave to appeal against that sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

The facts

3 On 4 September 2013 the appellant was charged…

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 Edgill v Maguire

Details

AGLC: EDGILL -v- MAGUIRE [2013] WASC 472
Case: [2013] WASC 472
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edgill v Maguire involved the appellant, Edgill, who appealed against his sentence for breaching protective bail conditions. The District Court had imposed a sentence of six months and one day's imprisonment. Edgill argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the lower end of seriousness of his breach. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was appropriate and if a re-sentencing was warranted.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive, particularly given that the breach of protective bail was at the lower end of seriousness. Edgill contended that the sentence was disproportionate to the nature of his breach and that a lesser sentence would have been more appropriate. The Court of Appeal needed to assess the balance between the seriousness of the breach and the severity of the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The breach, while serious, was at the lower end of the spectrum, and the sentence imposed did not reflect this mitigating factor. The Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing, particularly in cases involving breaches of bail conditions. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the original sentence was set aside, and the appellant was re-sentenced to a term that better reflected the lower seriousness of the breach.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Sentence of imprisonment set aside

Appellant re-sentenced

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.