Legal Research
Cases
Garlett v Balic

Garlett v Balic

Case [2016] WASC 172 13 June 2016

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: GARLETT -v- BALIC [2016] WASC 172

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 1 JUNE 2016

DELIVERED : 13 JUNE 2016

FILE NO/S: SJA 1033 of 2016

BETWEEN: JAMIE-LEE GARLETT
Appellant
AND
INGRID CHRISTINA BALIC
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE M E PONTIFEX
File No  :PE 39006 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Common assault - Term of 8 months' immediate imprisonment - Whether manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 313
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 9AA

Result:

Appeal upheld
Sentence of term of imprisonment set aside

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D D Brunello
Respondent: Ms K A T Pedersen

Solicitors:

Appellant: Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)
Respondent: State Solicitor's Office

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

Bropho v Hall [2015] WASC 50
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 317; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Esh v Cooper [2009] WASC 122
Evans v Richards [2015] WASC 53
Forkin v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 111
Harrison v Hunter [2012] WASC 166
Hull v Castledine [2005] WASC 252
Morgan v Kazandzis [2010] WASC 377
Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Neil v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305
Nembousse v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 68
Rossi v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 189; (2014) 47 WAR 508
Seeto v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 221
The State of Western Australia v Upkett [2013] WASCA 263
Thwaites v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 197
Ugle v Wells [1999] WASC 21
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
Wungundin v Barndon [2013] WASC 28

BEECH J: On 11 April 2016, Ms Garlett was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for 15 offences. Fines were imposed in relation to 14 of those offences. For an offence of common assault, Ms Garlett was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 months, to be served immediately.
Ms Garlett appeals against that sentence on two grounds. First, she says the magistrate erred in finding that the assault caused injuries to the complainant. Secondly, she says the sentence was manifestly excessive. For the reasons that follow, in circumstances where she had already been in custody for 130 days, I would uphold the appeal on ground 2.

Proceedings before the magistrate

On 2 March 2016, Ms Garlett pleaded guilty to all of the offences with which she was charged.
In relation to the assault offence, the prosecutor stated the facts as follows.
On 12 August 2015, Ms Garlett was in Murray Street Mall in Perth. Over a period of about 15 minutes, she shouted and swore at various people in the mall. The victim of the assault was sitting in the mall with friends drinking tea. Ms Garlett abused them, saying 'rich white bitches drinking tea and coffee'. Suddenly, without warning, Ms Garlett 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 Garlett v Balic

Details

AGLC: Garlett v Balic [2016] WASC 172
Case: [2016] WASC 172
Decision Date: 13 JUNE 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garlett v Balic involved the sentencing of the appellant, Garlett, who had been found guilty of common assault. The appellant was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment, which he appealed on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial authority in the country. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. This involved examining the nature and severity of the assault, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the principles of sentencing applicable to such offences. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the objectives of sentencing, including punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court needed to determine if the sentence was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the community.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the sentence of eight months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the assault was serious, and the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence. It was noted that the appellant had a prior criminal history, which influenced the severity of the sentence. The court emphasised that sentencing is a matter for the trial judge, who is in the best position to assess the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes for the offence committed.

Orders