Harvey v Ingles

Case [2004] WASCA 30

HARVEY -v- INGLES [2004] WASCA 30



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2004] WASCA 30
Case No:SJA:1121/20032 MARCH 2004
Coram:MCKECHNIE J2/03/04
8Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
D
PDF Version
Parties:RONALD WILLIAM HARVEY
ROHAN INGLES

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Sentence
Assault occasioning bodily harm
Road rage
Whether sentence of imprisonment appropriate
Need for general deterrence

Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 317A

Case References:
Hayden v The Queen [2003] WASCA 210
Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : HARVEY -v- INGLES [2004] WASCA 30 CORAM : MCKECHNIE J HEARD : 2 MARCH 2004 DELIVERED : 2 MARCH 2004 FILE NO/S : SJA 1121 of 2003 BETWEEN : RONALD WILLIAM HARVEY
    Appellant

    AND

    ROHAN INGLES
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MALLEY SM

File Number : AR 3709 of 2003



Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Road rage - Whether sentence of imprisonment appropriate - Need for general deterrence




Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 317A



(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed




Category: D


Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr R D Young
    Respondent : Mr R K Malhotra


Solicitors:

    Appellant : Gunning Young
    Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions



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

Hayden v The Queen [2003] WASCA 210

Case(s) also cited:



Nil


(Page 3)

1 MCKECHNIE J: The appellant was charged on 30 April 2003 that on 1 September 2002 he unlawfully assaulted Brett Allan Schofield (the complainant) and thereby did him bodily harm: s 317(1) Criminal Code. He pleaded not guilty. The matter was set down for trial on 23 October 2003, but, on that day, he entered a plea of guilty.

2 The facts giving rise to the offence were to a degree contested. Both the complainant and the appellant were driving in a northerly direction along Albany Highway in Gosnells. Whether, as the prosecution asserted, the appellant was tailgating the complainant, or whether, as the appellant asserted, the complainant was braking and accelerating and stopping him from going passed, matters little.

3 At all events, the vehicles came to a stop at the intersection of Albany Highway and Dorothy Street. The appellant then got out of his vehicle, went over to the complainant, who was still sitting in his vehicle, and hit him with a clenched fist to his head. The complainant attempted to get out of his vehicle, but the appellant continued to strike him. Finally, the complainant got out of his vehicle and a fight ensued.

4 There is no challenge to the fact that the complainant suffered a split lip, chipped teeth, a black eye and a swollen jaw. I think it is immaterial when the complainant suffered the injuries as the fight occurred due to the appellant's initial assault.

5 The appellant was at the time of sentence 26 years of age. He had a record which included a number of violent…

Continue reading Harvey v Ingles

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Harvey v Ingles [2004] WASCA 30
Case
[2004] WASCA 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Harvey, appealed against the sentence imposed by the primary judge in the District Court of New South Wales, which found him guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm and sentenced him to imprisonment. The primary judge, Inglis, found that Harvey's actions, which involved a road rage incident culminating in a physical assault, warranted a custodial sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to serve as a deterrent to others. Harvey contended that the sentence was excessive and that his personal circumstances warranted a non-custodial penalty. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the context of the crime and whether it achieved the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the primary judge had appropriately balanced the principles of sentencing, particularly general deterrence, with the personal circumstances of the offender. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to assess the appropriateness of the sentence. The appeal hinged on whether the primary judge had erred in determining the appropriate sentence, and if so, whether that error was such that it warranted interference by the appellate court.

The court of appeal found that the primary judge had considered the relevant principles of sentencing and had appropriately weighed the need for general deterrence against the personal circumstances of the offender. The court held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence and that there was no error in the primary judge's approach. The appellate court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases of assault occasioning bodily harm, particularly in the context of road rage incidents, and found that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the primary judge be affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.