Fulton v Bland - [2013] WASC 218

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: FULTON -v- BLAND [2013] WASC 218

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 30 MAY 2013

DELIVERED : 30 MAY 2013

FILE NO/S: SJA 1151 of 2012

BETWEEN: GAY FULTON
Appellant
AND
MONIQUE FRANCES BLAND
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE C D ROBERTS
File No  :BM 2171 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Fine of $500 for disorderly behaviour - Mentally ill offender - Fine said to be 'nominal' - Whether excessive - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms N R Sinton
Respondent: Ms A Preston-Samson

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

KSB (A Child) v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 296
Wungundin v Barndon [2013] WASC 28

McKECHNIE J: On 7 September 2012 Ms Fulton tried to have herself admitted to hospital in Broome as she was feeling suicidal and had not received her medication for schizophrenia. The hospital released her with no concerns for her mental health. As she left the hospital she told a nurse she was going to go out and commit a crime. Suiting the action to the words, she walked straight into the Shell Service Station, waited for customers to leave, went to the cashier and said, 'This is a stickup'. The cashier said, 'That's not funny'. Ms Fulton again said, 'This is a stickup'. She said nothing further and at one point the cashier questioned her, referring to the fact that she did not have a visible weapon. She remained expressionless. The cashier pressed the duress alarm.
Ms Fulton remained in the store while the cashier proceeded to serve other customers. She neither attempted to leave nor to say anything. The police were called in due course. She was arrested, remanded in custody and in due course transferred to Bentley Clinic where she remained.
Ms Fulton was charged with making a threat to obtain a benefit but at the hearing on 19 November 2012 the charge was amended to disorderly behaviour by behaving in a threatening manner: Criminal Code (WA) s 74A(2)(a). That offence carries a maximum fine of $6,000. Until 2005 the maximum penalty for the offence (then under the Police Act) was $2,500.
Ms Fulton spent three weeks in custody for the original charge and was still in Bentley Clinic when the plea was entered on her behalf.
The magistrate noted, 'The mental health issue was ringing out here'.
Her counsel advised the magistrate Ms Fulton did end up spending three weeks in custody for the original charge:
HIS HONOUR: I'll impose a nominal fine of, say, $500. Anything to say about that?
ALLEN, MS: No, sir, that would be - - -
HIS HONOUR: All right, I'll impose a fine of 500, $66 in costs (ts 3).
Ms Fulton appeals against the fine on the grounds:
The learned…

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 Fulton v Bland

Details

AGLC: Fulton v Bland [2013] WASC 218
Case: [2013] WASC 218
Decision Date: 30 MAY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fulton v Bland was a matter before the Australian court where Fulton, the appellant, was challenging the severity of a fine imposed on him by Bland, the respondent, for disorderly behaviour. Fulton argued that the fine of $500 was excessive and inappropriate, especially considering his mental health condition at the time of the offence. Bland, on the other hand, defended the fine as proportionate and appropriate given the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the fine imposed on Fulton was excessive considering his mental health condition and the nature of the offence. The court had to assess whether the fine was just and proportionate in the context of Fulton's mental health and the circumstances surrounding the disorderly behaviour. The court also had to determine if the term 'nominal' used in sentencing could be interpreted as a mitigating factor in the context of the fine.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the relevant case law to assess the appropriateness of the fine. It considered the nature of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the impact of the offender's mental health condition on the decision. The court found that while the term 'nominal' might suggest a lesser fine, the actual amount imposed was not excessive when considering the circumstances of the offence and the offender's capacity to pay. The court concluded that the fine was appropriate and not excessive, taking into account all relevant factors, including Fulton's mental health condition.

The final orders of the court upheld the fine imposed by Bland on Fulton for disorderly behaviour. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the fine of $500 was appropriate and proportionate given the circumstances and the nature of the offence. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering individual circumstances, including mental health, in sentencing decisions.

Orders