Legal Research
Cases
Hull v Castledine

Hull v Castledine

Case [2005] WASC 252 18 November 2005

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: HULL -v- CASTLEDINE [2005] WASC 252

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 12 OCTOBER 2005

DELIVERED : 18 NOVEMBER 2005

FILE NO/S: SJA 1065 of 2005

BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER MARTIN HULL
Appellant
AND
STEPHEN JAMES CASTLEDINE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MS MUSK SM
File No  :FR 3473 of 2005, FR 3474 of 2005
Result  :Convictions recorded

Catchwords:

Appeal - Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Spent conviction order - Whether material error of fact or law - Discretion granted to sentencing Judge - Section 39 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) - Likelihood of re-offending - Previous good character

Legislation:

Police Act 1892 (WA), s 20

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2), s 45

Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA), s 25 s 26, s 27

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr T F Percy QC
Respondent: Mr R L Bathurst

Solicitors:

Appellant: Tait & Co
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291

Case(s) also cited:

Brewer v Bayens (2002) 26 WAR 510
Harper v Page [2004] WASCA 267
Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246

LE MIERE J: The appellant appeals, by leave of this Court, from a decision of a Magistrate refusing to make a spent conviction order. The appellant was convicted in the Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions on 5 May 2002 of two offences contrary to s 20 of the Police Act 1892 (WA), namely resisting a member of the police force and hindering a member of the police force. The Magistrate imposed fines of $500 in respect of each offence.

Circumstances of Offence

The circumstances of the offences are set out in the statements of material facts read to the Magistrate. At about 10.30 pm on Friday 8 April 2005, the appellant was in Mews Road, Fremantle outside Little Creatures licensed premises. The appellant was in company with a friend, George David Wren, who police had cause to speak to about another matter. Wren was subsequently arrested. While the police were speaking with Wren, the appellant, who was extremely intoxicated, continually interjected hindering police in their efforts to obtain details from Wren. The appellant was warned on at least three occasions to back off. This warning was disregarded. However, police were unable to deal with the appellant because of the actions of Wren who was placed under arrest. When arrested, Wren ran from police. Police pursued Wren on foot and while struggling to restrain him, the appellant attempted to pull police off him. The appellant was told to back away or be arrested. However, the appellant chose to ignore this warning and again attempted to pull police off Wren. Police forced the appellant away by a push to the body and continued to struggle with Wren who was eventually restrained and escorted to the police…

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 Hull v Castledine

Details

AGLC: Hull v Castledine [2005] WASC 252
Case: [2005] WASC 252
Decision Date: 18 NOVEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the defendant, Hull, against his sentence imposed by the sentencing judge in the Magistrates' Court of Western Australia, concerned the adequacy of the sentence and the application of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA). Hull was found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal hinged on whether the sentencing judge made a material error of fact or law in determining the appropriate sentence. Hull argued that the judge failed to adequately consider his previous good character and the low likelihood of re-offending, which should have warranted a lesser sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge exercised their discretion appropriately under section 39 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA). The court had to examine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, excessive, or otherwise wrong in the circumstances. Hull contended that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently weigh his prior good character and the low probability of re-offending. The defence argued that these factors should have influenced a more lenient sentence. The prosecution maintained that the judge exercised their discretion correctly, considering all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence.

The court considered the principles governing the exercise of sentencing discretion under section 39 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA). The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered the defendant's previous good character and the low likelihood of re-offending, but ultimately determined that these factors were outweighed by the gravity of the offence. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors and had not made a material error of fact or law in imposing the sentence. The court upheld the sentence, confirming that the sentencing judge's discretion was exercised within the statutory framework.

No further orders were made by the court. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court was upheld.

Orders