Hayward v Martin

Case [2014] WASC 309

HAYWARD -v- MARTIN [2014] WASC 309



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WASC 309
03/09/2014
Case No:SJA:1051/20148 AUGUST 2014
Coram:JENKINS J8/08/14
21Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: 1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. On prosecution notice PE 38641 of 2013 sentence varied by substituting a suspension period of 6 months.
4. On prosecution notices PE 58342-58344 of 2013 sentences set aside, no sentence imposed and applicant released.
5. On prosecution notices PE 39452 of 2013 and PE 72766 and PE 74282 of 2014 sentence varied by substituting a CBO for 6 months.
B
PDF Version
Parties:GREGORY SHAUN HAYWARD
WAYNE DAVID RYAN MARTIN
SAMUEL JAMES CLARK
MICHAEL BRUCE O'SULLIVAN
MATTHEW JOHN STEPHEN
WADE BRETT STANDEN
KEITH ROBERT NISBETT

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Appeal
Being armed in a way that may cause fear
Disorderly behaviour
Fail to obey order given by police officer
Offender cognitively impaired
Offender with extensive prior criminal record for similar offences
Taking into account time spent in custody and time on Intellectual Disability Diversion programme
Turns on own facts

Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 39, s 76
Weapons Act 1999 (WA), s 8

Case References:
Bropho v Harrison [2013] WASC 250
Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
King v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 131
Richardson v Pickett [2008] WASC 203
Scook v The Queen [2008] WASCA 114
The State of Western Australia v Khasay [2014] WASCA 58
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CRIMINAL
CITATION : HAYWARD -v- MARTIN [2014] WASC 309 CORAM : JENKINS J HEARD : 8 AUGUST 2014 DELIVERED : 8 AUGUST 2014 PUBLISHED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : SJA 1051 of 2014 BETWEEN : GREGORY SHAUN HAYWARD
    Appellant

    AND

    WAYNE DAVID RYAN MARTIN
    First Respondent

    SAMUEL JAMES CLARK
    Second Respondent

    MICHAEL BRUCE O'SULLIVAN
    Third Respondent

    MATTHEW JOHN STEPHEN
    Fourth Respondent

    WADE BRETT STANDEN
    Fifth Respondent

    KEITH ROBERT NISBETT
    Sixth Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE B A LANE

File No : PE 38641 of 2013, PE 39452 of 2013, PE 58342 of 2013, PE 58343 of 2013, PE 58344 of 2013, PE 72766 of 2014, PE 74282 of 2014


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Being armed in a way that may cause fear - Disorderly behaviour - Fail to obey order given by police officer - Offender cognitively impaired - Offender with extensive prior criminal record for similar offences - Taking into account time spent in custody and time on Intellectual Disability Diversion programme - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9


Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 39, s 76
Weapons Act 1999 (WA), s 8

Continue reading Hayward v Martin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hayward v Martin [2014] WASC 309
Case
[2014] WASC 309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, a man with an extensive criminal history and cognitive impairments, appealed against multiple sentences imposed by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted for various offences, including being armed in a way that may cause fear, disorderly behaviour, and failing to obey a police order. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences were appropriate given the appellant's circumstances and whether they adequately considered the time already served and participation in the Intellectual Disability Diversion programme.

The key legal issues involved the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentences in light of the appellant's cognitive impairments and the time he had already spent in custody. The court had to assess whether the penalties were just and whether the appellant's prior criminal history and current circumstances warranted a more lenient approach. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentences imposed adequately reflected the appellant's cognitive impairments and the time he had already spent in custody.

The Court of Appeal found that the original sentences were excessive, particularly given the appellant's cognitive impairments, his participation in the Intellectual Disability Diversion programme, and the time already served. The court emphasised the need to take into account the appellant's specific circumstances, including his cognitive impairments and prior participation in diversionary programs, when determining the appropriate penalties. The court substituted the original sentences with more lenient penalties, such as Community Based Orders (CBOs) and suspended sentences, reflecting the appellant's circumstances and the time already served. The court also set aside certain sentences, ordering the appellant's release.

The final orders included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, varying certain sentences by substituting CBOs and suspension periods, setting aside other sentences, and ordering the appellant's release. These orders reflected the court's determination that the original sentences were inappropriate given the appellant's circumstances and the time already served.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. On prosecution notice PE 38641 of 2013 sentence varied by substituting a suspension period of 6 months.

4. On prosecution notices PE 58342-58344 of 2013 sentences set aside, no sentence imposed and applicant released.

5. On prosecution notices PE 39452 of 2013 and PE 72766 and PE 74282 of 2014 sentence varied by substituting a CBO for 6 months.

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.