GRAHAM -v- URBAN [2013] WASC 273

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 273
Case No:	SJA:1078/2013	Heard:	19 JULY 2013
Coram:	ALLANSON J	Delivered:	25/07/13
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	SJA 1078 of 2013 Leave to appeal granted on both grounds Appeal allowed on ground 2 Appeal dismissed on ground 1 SJA 1079 of 2013 Leave to appeal granted on all grounds Appeal dismissed on ground 1 Appeal allowed on grounds 2 and 3
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PATRICIA MAREE GRAHAM BARRY URBAN MOHAMED BIN MUSTAFA
Catchwords:	Criminal Law and procedure Road traffic offences Appeal against sentences Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49, s 64, s 64AAA Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 23 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 80, s 87
Case References:	Brown v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 74 Brown v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 111 Gable v Nardini [2010] WASC 321 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 Mears v Holleman [2010] WASC 39 Narkle v Hamilton [2008] WASCA 31 Sheiner v Roberts [2009] WASC 281 Trew v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 155

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : GRAHAM -v- URBAN [2013] WASC 273 CORAM : ALLANSON J HEARD : 19 JULY 2013 DELIVERED : 25 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1078 of 2013 BETWEEN : PATRICIA MAREE GRAHAM

Appellant

AND

BARRY URBAN

Respondent

FILE NO/S : SJA 1079 of 2013 BETWEEN : PATRICIA MAREE GRAHAM

Appellant

AND

MOHAMED BIN MUSTAFA

Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No : SJA 1078 of 2013

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE V C EDWARDS

File No : AR 1422 of 2011, AR 1423 of 2011

For File No : SJA 1079 of 2013

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE V C EDWARDS

File No : MH 116 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal Law and procedure - Road traffic offences - Appeal against sentences - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 49, s 64, s 64AAA

Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 23
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 80, s 87

Result:

SJA 1078 of 2013

Leave to appeal granted on both grounds
Appeal allowed on ground 2
Appeal dismissed on ground 1
SJA 1079 of 2013
Leave to appeal granted on all grounds
Appeal dismissed on ground 1
Appeal allowed on grounds 2 and 3

(Page 3)

Category: B

Representation:

SJA 1078 of 2013

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S D Freitag

Respondent : Mr J F Bennett

Solicitors:

Appellant : PA Brindal & Co

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

SJA 1079 of 2013

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S D Freitag

Respondent : Mr J F Bennett

Solicitors:

Appellant : PA Brindal & Co

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Brown…

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 Graham v Urban

Details

AGLC: GRAHAM -v- URBAN [2013] WASC 273
Case: [2013] WASC 273
Decision Date: 25 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Graham v Urban, the defendant was appealing against the sentences handed down for various road traffic offences. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and second, whether there were errors in the process of the trial that warranted a new trial.

The court's analysis began with the consideration of whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that, while the sentences imposed were harsh, they were not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offences and the defendant's history. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground. The court then turned to the procedural errors alleged by the defendant. The court identified errors in the trial process, including an improper exclusion of evidence and errors in the summing up by the trial judge. These errors were found to have materially affected the outcome of the trial. As such, the appeal was allowed on these grounds.

The court's decision resulted in the grant of leave to appeal on all grounds for the second defendant, with the appeal being dismissed on the first ground and allowed on the second and third grounds. The final orders were that leave to appeal was granted on both grounds for the first defendant, with the appeal allowed on the second ground and dismissed on the first. For the second defendant, leave to appeal was granted on all grounds, with the appeal dismissed on the first ground and allowed on the second and third grounds.

Orders

Orders of the court

SJA 1078 of 2013

Leave to appeal granted on both grounds

Appeal allowed on ground 2

Appeal dismissed on ground 1

SJA 1079 of 2013

Leave to appeal granted on all grounds

Appeal dismissed on ground 1

Appeal allowed on grounds 2 and 3

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.