EDGILL -v- STILWELL [2016] WASC 246

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 246
Case No:	SJA:1029/2016	Heard:	29 JUNE 2016
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	11/08/16
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed in part
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	COEN JOSEPH LEIGH EDGILL ANDREW THOMAS STILWELL AMBER JAYNE HARVEY MATTHEW JAMES RAVEN LOGAN ROBERT HENDERSON CASSANDRA JADE GUNN PAUL THOMAS CASEY
Catchwords:	Appeal against sentence Extension of time to appeal Whether magistrate failed to consider suspending imprisonment Whether substantial miscarriage of justice where suspending term of imprisonment was open Whether manifestly excessive Whether outside range of sound exercise of sentencing discretion Where backdating did not take account of entire time spent in custody Appeal allowed in part Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Fogg v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 11 Howlett v Hesp [2012] WASC 351 Powell v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASC 54 Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 Samuel v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 154 Ward v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 172

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : EDGILL -v- STILWELL [2016] WASC 246 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 29 JUNE 2016 DELIVERED : 11 AUGUST 2016 FILE NO/S : SJA 1029 of 2016 BETWEEN : COEN JOSEPH LEIGH EDGILL

Appellant

AND

ANDREW THOMAS STILWELL

First Respondent

AMBER JAYNE HARVEY

Second Respondent

MATTHEW JAMES RAVEN

Third Respondent

LOGAN ROBERT HENDERSON

Fourth Respondent

CASSANDRA JADE GUNN

Fifth Respondent

PAUL THOMAS CASEY

Sixth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE R S HUSTON

File No : MI 5545 of 2015, MI 5546 of 2015, MI 5547 of 2015, MI 6901 of 2015, MI 6902 of 2015, MI 6903 of 2015, AR 7212 of 2015, AR 7213 of 2015, MI 8605 of 2015, MI 8606 of 2015, PE 44640 of 2015, PE 44641 of 2015, PE 44642 of 2015, PE 44643 of 2015, PE 60570 of 2015, PE 60571 of 2015, PE 60572 of 2015, PE 60573 of 2015, PE 60574 of 2015, PE 60575 of 2015

Catchwords:

Appeal against sentence - Extension of time to appeal - Whether magistrate failed to consider suspending imprisonment - Whether substantial miscarriage of justice where suspending term of imprisonment was open - Whether manifestly excessive - Whether outside range of sound exercise of sentencing discretion - Where backdating did not take account of entire time spent in custody - Appeal allowed in part - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms N R Sinton

First Respondent : Ms K C Cook

Second Respondent : Ms K C Cook

Third Respondent : Ms K C Cook

Fourth Respondent : Ms K C Cook

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 Stilwell

Details

AGLC: Edgill v Stilwell [2016] WASC 246
Case: [2016] WASC 246
Decision Date: 11 AUGUST 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edgill v Stilwell involved an appeal against a sentence by the appellant, Edgill, against the decision of the respondent, Stilwell. The dispute centred on whether the magistrate had failed to consider suspending the imprisonment term and whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice in the sentencing. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate had erred in not considering the suspension of the imprisonment term, whether this omission constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or outside the range of sound sentencing discretion. The court also needed to consider the appropriateness of backdating the sentence to account for time already spent in custody.

In determining the appeal, the court held that the magistrate's failure to consider the suspension of the imprisonment term was an error. However, the court found that this did not necessarily result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court examined the sentence in detail and concluded that while it was on the higher end of the scale, it was not manifestly excessive or outside the range of sound exercise of sentencing discretion. The court also noted that the backdating of the sentence did not fully account for the entire time spent in custody. Based on these findings, the court allowed the appeal in part and ordered a reconsideration of the sentence with appropriate adjustments.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed in part

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.