Legal Research
Cases
Eric v Bull

Eric v Bull

Case [2014] WASC 342 24 September 2014

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: ERIC -v- BULL [2014] WASC 342

CORAM: CORBOY J

HEARD: 8 AUGUST 2014

DELIVERED : 12 SEPTEMBER 2014

PUBLISHED : 24 SEPTEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: SJA 1024 of 2014

BETWEEN: ZELJKO ERIC
Appellant
AND
GEOFFREY DAVID BULL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE G BENN
File No  :MI 9655 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Whether sentence of immediate imprisonment manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 317
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed and appellant re-sentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S B Watters
Respondent: Ms T J Mcarthur

Solicitors:

Appellant: D G Price & Co
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Ali v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 55
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Holden v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 50
Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189
Mourish v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 257
Rhatigan v Forbes [2009] WASC 368
The State of Western Australia v Cheeseman [2011] WASCA 15
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
Wiltshire v Mafi [2010] WASCA 111
CORBOY J:

The proposed appeal and the result

The appellant was charged that on 7 November 2013 he unlawfully assaulted Keagan Lee Picado and thereby did him bodily harm, contrary to s 317(1) of the Criminal Code (WA). He pleaded guilty to that charge on 13 December 2013. He agreed to participate in victim mediation and a pre‑sentence report was ordered. Accordingly, the appellant was not sentenced until 25 March 2014. He was sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment of 7 months.
The appellant commenced an appeal on 1 April 2014, contending that the sentence of immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive having regard to his plea of guilty; the criminality involved in the offence for which he was convicted; his antecedents; the sentences imposed in comparable cases and the pending birth of his second child. He was granted bail on 3 April 2014 pending his application for leave to appeal. An order was subsequently made that the appellant's application for leave to appeal be heard at the same time as the appeal.

The facts

The facts alleged by the prosecution and admitted by the appellant were that at about 4 pm, 7 November 2013, the appellant went to a hardware store in Ellenbrook. He had arranged to collect a hire vehicle from the store but when he arrived he was told it was not available. An argument ensued between the appellant and staff members. The appellant left the store angry and frustrated.
The victim was an employee of the store. He was 17 years of age, 167 cm tall and of slim build. The appellant is 31 years of age, 190 cm and…

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 Eric v Bull

Details

AGLC: Eric v Bull [2014] WASC 342
Case: [2014] WASC 342
Decision Date: 24 SEPTEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Eric, appealed against his sentence for an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. The court was required to determine whether the sentence of immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The appellant's legal representatives argued that the sentence was disproportionately harsh, taking into account various mitigating factors, including the appellant's otherwise unblemished criminal record, his remorse, and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The court considered the principles governing the assessment of the severity of a sentence, including the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. The court also examined the sentencing principles applicable to assault occasioning bodily harm, including the need to protect the community, deter the offender and others from committing similar offences, and to provide appropriate punishment and rehabilitation for the offender. The court also took into account the appellant's personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on him and his family.

After considering the arguments and the applicable principles, the court found that the sentence of immediate imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender, and that it was necessary to protect the community and deter others from committing similar offences. The court also found that the sentence provided appropriate punishment and rehabilitation for the offender, taking into account his personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on him and his family. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence of immediate imprisonment imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia.

Orders