HUME -v- PETTYFER [2014] WASC 22

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 22
Case No:	SJA:1138/2013	Heard:	22 JANUARY 2014
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	29/01/14
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KARA LACEY HUME HAYDEN NOEL PETTYFER
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Serious assault s 318 Criminal Code (WA) Assault on hospital employee Whether sentence of 7 months' immediate imprisonment manifestly excessive
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 318
Case References:	Hill v Bodenham [2000] WASCA 37 Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 Powell v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASC 54 Quinn v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 99 Roncevic v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 43

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : HUME -v- PETTYFER [2014] WASC 22 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 22 JANUARY 2014 DELIVERED : 29 JANUARY 2014 FILE NO/S : SJA 1138 of 2013 BETWEEN : KARA LACEY HUME

Appellant

AND

HAYDEN NOEL PETTYFER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE V C EDWARDS

File No : MH 2689 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Serious assault - s 318 Criminal Code (WA) - Assault on hospital employee - Whether sentence of 7 months' immediate imprisonment manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 318

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms T McArthur

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Hill v Bodenham [2000] WASCA 37
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
Powell v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASC 54
Quinn v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 99
Roncevic v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 43

1 HALL J: On 29 October 2013 the appellant was sentenced in the Magistrates Court to 7 months' imprisonment for a serious assault contrary to s 318 of the Criminal Code (WA). She seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The facts

2 The facts were not in dispute.

3 On 1 July 2013 the appellant was taken to the Peel Health Campus in an ambulance. The Peel Health Campus is a public hospital. The appellant was taken there as she was heavily intoxicated. She later said that she had been using amphetamines for several days.

4 Whilst being attended to by nursing staff the appellant became aggressive and thrashed her arms about. As a consequence a security guard employed by the hospital was called. He attempted to restrain the appellant and she kicked out and hit him in the groin. She continued to be aggressive and non-compliant with nursing staff. The security guard then escorted her out of the hospital.

5 A short time later 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 Hume v PETTYFER

Details

AGLC: Hume v PETTYFER [2014] WASC 22
Case: [2014] WASC 22
Decision Date: 29 JANUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of Hume v Pettyfer involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the defendant, Pettyfer, for a serious assault on a hospital employee. The offence was prosecuted under section 318 of the Criminal Code (WA), which pertains to assault occasioning bodily harm. Pettyfer was sentenced to seven months of immediate imprisonment, a sentence he deemed manifestly excessive. Pettyfer sought leave to appeal this sentence, arguing it was disproportionate given the circumstances and nature of the assault.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Pettyfer for his assault was manifestly excessive. This required the court to consider the severity of the offence, Pettyfer's criminal history, the circumstances of the assault, and whether there were any mitigating factors. The court was also tasked with determining whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence.

The court thoroughly examined the nature and circumstances of the assault, Pettyfer's criminal history, and the principles governing sentencing for offences under section 318. It concluded that the trial judge had adequately considered all relevant factors and exercised his discretion appropriately. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, given the severity of the assault and the need to deter similar conduct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.