GRAY -v- MADAFFARI [2002] WASCA 13

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 13
Published:	07/02/2002
Case No:	SJA:1158/2001	Heard:	10 DECEMBER 2001
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	10/12/01
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Sentence of 6 months' imprisonment set aside Sentence of 4 months suspended for 6 months substituted
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	CHRISTOPHER MARTIN GRAY PASQUALE MICHAEL MADAFFARI
Catchwords:	Sentence Disorderly by committing a nuisance Aboriginal offender Relevance of alcohol, socioeconomic circumstances and environment Whether maximum term of imprisonment for 11th offence appropriate
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Bensegger v The Queen [1979] WAR 65 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 R v Juli (1990) 50 A Crim R 31 Shooter (1997) 97 A Crim R 581 Dann v Chong, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980681; 26 November 1998 Butcher v Edwards, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980463; 7 August 1998 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Nabanardi v Minner (1992) 62 A Crim R 325 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 R v Woodley, Boogna & Charles (1994) 76 A Crim R 302

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : GRAY -v- MADAFFARI [2002] WASCA 13 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 10 DECEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 10 DECEMBER 2001 PUBLISHED : 7 FEBRUARY 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1158 of 2001 BETWEEN : CHRISTOPHER MARTIN GRAY

Appellant

AND

PASQUALE MICHAEL MADAFFARI

Respondent

Catchwords:

Sentence - Disorderly by committing a nuisance - Aboriginal offender - Relevance of alcohol, socioeconomic circumstances and environment - Whether maximum term of imprisonment for 11th offence appropriate

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Sentence of 6 months' imprisonment set aside
Sentence of 4 months suspended for 6 months substituted

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms M R Barone

Respondent : Mr J F O'Sullivan

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid of Western Australia

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Bensegger v The Queen [1979] WAR 65
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
R v Juli (1990) 50 A Crim R 31
Shooter (1997) 97 A Crim R 581

Case(s) also cited:

Dann v Chong, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980681; 26 November 1998
Butcher v Edwards, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980463; 7 August 1998
Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Nabanardi v Minner (1992) 62 A Crim R 325
Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Woodley, Boogna & Charles (1994) 76 A Crim R 302

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: On 10 December 2001 I allowed this appeal and undertook to publish the reasons for so doing. These are those reasons.

2 The appellant was charged in the Court of…

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 Gray v Madaffari

Details

AGLC: Gray v Madaffari [2002] WASCA 13
Case: [2002] WASCA 13
Decision Date: 7 FEBRUARY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gray v Madaffari, the respondent, a young Aboriginal man, appealed against the severity of a sentence imposed for a public nuisance offence, which was his eleventh such offence. The respondent was sentenced to six months' imprisonment by the Magistrates' Court, which was deemed to be the maximum term available under the relevant legislation. The appeal was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances, given the respondent's background, including his alcohol use, socio-economic circumstances, and environment. The court considered whether the sentence was excessive and whether the maximum term of imprisonment for the eleventh offence was justified. The court also needed to determine whether a more lenient and rehabilitative approach would have been more appropriate.

The County Court determined that the sentence of six months' imprisonment was inappropriate, given the respondent's circumstances and the potential for a more rehabilitative outcome. The court held that the sentence did not adequately address the underlying issues contributing to the respondent's offending behaviour and did not offer a pathway to rehabilitation. The court substituted the original sentence with a sentence of four months' imprisonment, suspended for six months, which was considered to be a more appropriate and rehabilitative response. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Sentence of 6 months' imprisonment set aside

Sentence of 4 months suspended for 6 months substituted

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.