HARRISON -v- HUNTER [2012] WASC 166

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 166
Case No:	SJA:1123/2011	Heard:	30 APRIL 2012
Coram:	MARTIN CJ	Delivered:	30/04/12
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Sentence of 8 months imprisonment imposed on 14 November 2011 be suspended for 12 months from 30 April 2012 Sentence suspended with supervisory condition
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	DAIN MATTHEW HARRISON MATTHEW JAMES HUNTER
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Aggravated assault Prior convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm Appeal of sentence of 8 months imprisonment on grounds of manifestly excessive sentence Domestic violence Sole provider for family Guilty plea Subsequent engagement in family violence programme Suspended sentence appropriate, subject to supervision requirement
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 313(1)(a) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, pt 12, s 84A, s 84B
Case References:	Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 McDougall v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 232 Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : HARRISON -v- HUNTER [2012] WASC 166 CORAM : MARTIN CJ HEARD : 30 APRIL 2012 DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1123 of 2011 BETWEEN : DAIN MATTHEW HARRISON

Appellant

AND

MATTHEW JAMES HUNTER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE CAMPIONE

File No : PE 43759 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Aggravated assault - Prior convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm - Appeal of sentence of 8 months imprisonment on grounds of manifestly excessive sentence - Domestic violence - Sole provider for family - Guilty plea - Subsequent engagement in family violence programme - Suspended sentence appropriate, subject to supervision requirement

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 313(1)(a)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, pt 12, s 84A, s 84B

Result:

Appeal allowed

Sentence of 8 months imprisonment imposed on 14 November 2011 be suspended for 12 months from 30 April 2012
Sentence suspended with supervisory condition

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr K P Bates

Respondent : Mr L A Repper

Solicitors:

Appellant : Bates Legal Pty Ltd

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
McDougall v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 232
Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139

(Page 3)

MARTIN CJ

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 30 April 2012 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 This is an appeal against a sentence imposed for the offence of aggravated assault. The…

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 Harrison v Hunter

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Hunter [2012] WASC 166
Case: [2012] WASC 166
Decision Date: 30 APRIL 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Harrison, sought to appeal against his sentence for an offence of aggravated assault, contending that the 8 months imprisonment imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. Harrison, who had prior convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm, pleaded guilty to the charge. The lower court was presented with the mitigating factor of Harrison being the sole provider for his family, and his subsequent engagement in a family violence programme. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues for the court to decide included whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the mitigating factors, and whether a suspended sentence would be a more appropriate penalty. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for aggravated assault, the relevance of prior convictions, the impact of the sentence on the appellant’s family, and the appellant’s participation in a rehabilitation program.

The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, found that the sentence of 8 months imprisonment was indeed manifestly excessive. The court recognised the significance of Harrison being the primary family provider and his engagement in a family violence program as mitigating factors. The court determined that a suspended sentence, subject to a supervision requirement, would be more appropriate and better suited to the circumstances of the case. The court thus allowed the appeal and ordered the sentence to be suspended for 12 months from 30 April 2012, with the condition that the sentence be suspended subject to supervision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Sentence of 8 months imprisonment imposed on 14 November 2011 be suspended for 12 months from 30 April 2012

Sentence suspended with supervisory condition

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.