Inglis v Pinch

Case [2016] WASC 30

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   INGLIS -v- PINCH [2016] WASC 30

CORAM:   PRITCHARD J

HEARD:   7 AUGUST 2015

DELIVERED          :   8 FEBRUARY 2016

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1028 of 2015

BETWEEN:   BRETT INGLIS

Appellant

AND

BRADLEY STEPHEN PINCH
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :MAGISTRATE P A ROTH

File No  :MC 151 of 2015, MC 152 of 2015, MC 153 of 2015

Catchwords:

Appeal against sentence - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Whether any grounds of appeal have reasonable prospects of success - Offences under s 440A(3)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA) - Unlawfully using a restricted-access computer system - Whether nature of information accessed is a mitigating factor - Whether the purpose of the unlawful access is a mitigating factor - Whether Magistrate erred by failing to state that a reduction in sentence had been made for a plea of guilty - Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA), s 440A
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr D W L Renton

Respondent:     Mr J L Winton

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Darren Jones

Respondent:     State Solicitor for Western Australia

Cases referred to in judgment:

Abeyakoon v Brown [2011] WASCA 63

Al Hussein v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2014] WASC 296

Casilli v Wehrmann [2014] WASC 319

CE Oates and Sons Pty Ltd t/as Narrogin Retravision v Balla [2015] WASC 144

Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

Evans v Richards [2015] WASC 53

House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499

Hull v State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 194

Mack v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 207

Moody v French [2008] WASCA 67

Rhatigan v Forbes [2009] WASC 368

Rogers v Hitchcock [2015] WASC 120

Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

Seeto v State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 221

SKA v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 186

Taylor v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 72

Wallam v Dent [2008] WASC 170

  1. PRITCHARD J: On 9 March 2015, Mr Inglis was convicted in the Magistrates Court of three charges of breaching s 440A(3)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA) in that he unlawfully used a restricted‑access computer system on 10 January 2014, on 21 March 2014 and on 10 September 2014.

  2. Mr Inglis pleaded guilty to the three charges on his first appearance in the Magistrates Court.  The Magistrate imposed a single fine of $8,000[1] in respect of all three offences, ordered Mr Inglis to pay costs, and granted a spent conviction order.

    [1] Pursuant to s 54 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).

  3. Mr Inglis now seeks to appeal against the sentence imposed.  He requires leave to do so.  The question of leave was referred for hearing at the same time as the appeal itself.

  4. For the reasons which follow, leave to appeal…

Continue reading Inglis v Pinch

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Inglis v Pinch [2016] WASC 30
Case
[2016] WASC 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Inglis v Pinch involves an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant, a senior constable with the Western Australian Police, for three offences of unlawfully using a restricted-access computer system. The District Court of Western Australia presided over the case, where the appellant was found guilty of accessing the Incident Management System (IMS) database for personal reasons rather than for official police purposes. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate had failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors in his sentencing decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the nature of the information accessed and the purpose of the unlawful access constituted mitigating factors, whether the magistrate erred by not explicitly stating that a reduction in sentence had been made for the appellant's plea of guilty, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the appellant's actions warranted a more lenient sentence due to the nature of the information accessed and the appellant's intent, and whether the sentence was disproportionate considering these mitigating factors.

The court found that the nature of the information accessed and the appellant's intent did not warrant a significant reduction in sentence, as the appellant could have obtained the same information through lawful means. The court further held that the magistrate had not erred in not explicitly stating that a reduction in sentence had been made for the appellant's plea of guilty, as the sentence imposed already reflected such a reduction. The court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the inherent seriousness of the offences and the appellant's position as a police officer. The appeal against sentence was ultimately dismissed.

The court ordered that the appeal against sentence be dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the District Court of Western Australia be upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The facts in relation to each of the offences Mr Inglis is a senior constable with the Western Australian Police. In the course of his duties, he is permitted to have access to the Incident Management System (IMS database) which is the restricted‑access computer system used by the Police. Police officers are permitted to use the IMS only for the purposes of their duties. On each occasion when a police officer seeks to access the IMS system, he or she must log in, and a 'pop-up' reminder will appear on the screen to alert the officer to the fact that the system may only be accessed for official purposes. On 10 January 2014, Mr Inglis accessed the IMS database to look at the information report in relation to an assault of which he was the victim. In his plea in mitigation, Mr Inglis' counsel advised the learned Magistrate that Mr Inglis accessed the IMS database on this occasion in order to see whether a person of interest had been identified in the investigation into that assault. Nobody had been. Consequently, the only information Mr Inglis obtained as a result of accessing the system was that no person of interest had been identified. It was not in dispute that Mr Inglis could have obtained the same information through lawful means, by making enquiries of his supervisor or of the detectives investigating the assault. The second offence was committed on 21 March 2014, when Mr Inglis was on duty and accessed the IMS database to obtain details about the vehicle registration of his own car. In his plea in mitigation, Mr Inglis' counsel submitted that Mr Inglis did so in order to find out the expiry date for his registration so he could fill out some paperwork. Clearly, Mr Inglis could have obtained the same information by lawful means, for example by contacting the Department of Transport. The third offence was committed on 10 September 2014. Mr Inglis was on duty and accessed the IMS database to look up an information report in relation to an incident involving trespass and damage which took place at his home. In his plea in mitigation, Mr Inglis' counsel submitted that Mr Inglis accessed the IMS database on this occasion in order to see whether any person of interest had been identified in the course of the investigation of that offence. The only information Mr Inglis obtained as a result of accessing IMS was that no person of interest had been identified. Again, it was not in dispute that Mr Inglis could have obtained the same information through lawful means, by making enquiries of the local detectives about the progress of the investigation. The submissions of the prosecutor and defence counsel at the sentencing hearing The prosecutor submitted that the offences in question placed them 'towards the middle in the scale of criminality'.[2] He submitted that that was so primarily because of the 'inherent seriousness of these offences'.[3] He submitted that the offences in this case involved a police officer committing offences while on duty, which the Court of Appeal in Hull v State of Western Australia[4] had observed was a most serious matter that would ordinarily attract a substantial penalty.[2] ts 8.[3] ts 8.[4] Hull v State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 194.

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.