JANERKA -v- BETHELL [2002] WASCA 198

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 198
Case No:	SJA:1051/2002	Heard:	18 JULY 2002
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	26/07/02
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CONRAD LEE JANERKA DARREN JOHN BETHELL
Catchwords:	Criminal law Unlawful wounding Whether sentence should be suspended No new principles
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327 Evans v Vanderheide [2001] WASCA 352 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : JANERKA -v- BETHELL [2002] WASCA 198 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 18 JULY 2002 DELIVERED : 26 JULY 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1051 of 2002 BETWEEN : CONRAD LEE JANERKA

Appellant

AND

DARREN JOHN BETHELL

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Unlawful wounding - Whether sentence should be suspended - No new principles

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A E Monisse

Respondent : Mr W J C De Mars

Solicitors:

Appellant : GC & KC Christou

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Etrelezis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 327

Case(s) also cited:

Evans v Vanderheide [2001] WASCA 352
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: In the early hours of 29 January 2002, Mr Denniss was at Beaumaris Beach, Iluka. A little way apart, Mr Janerka and his girlfriend were sitting beside a small fire in the sand dunes. For some reason this attracted the attention of Mr Denniss who asked Mr Janerka to put the fire out. There was an exchange of words and the fire was kicked out, some of the sand being kicked at Mr Janerka and his girlfriend.

2 Apparently egged on by his girlfriend, Mr Janerka picked up an empty whisky bottle and approached Mr Denniss, asking if he could join their party. As he got close to him, he swung the bottle from behind his back and struck Mr Denniss to the face near the left eye. The injuries were serious and included lacerations to the right upper eyelid, left upper eyelid and left cheek; marked swelling around the left eye with evidence of ocular injury - manifested as a left corneal abrasion, left proptosis and left hyphaema (blood within the eye), together with a mild abrasion to the right cornea. There were multiple fractures around the left eye and evidence of bruising behind the eye. The time in hospital seemed to have been very unpleasant. Mr Denniss does not have clear vision in his left eye and it is not known whether he will recover normal vision.

3 After attacking Mr Denniss, Mr Janerka tried…

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 Janerka v Bethell

Details

AGLC: Janerka v Bethell [2002] WASCA 198
Case: [2002] WASCA 198
Decision Date: 26 JULY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Janerka versus Bethell, the case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Janerka, sought to appeal a decision made by the Supreme Court of Queensland which found him guilty of unlawful wounding. The respondent, Bethell, was the victim in this matter. The primary issue before the High Court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant should be suspended. The court was also required to determine if there were any new principles of law that warranted reconsideration of the sentence.

The High Court, in delivering its judgment, clarified that there were no new principles of law applicable to this case that would alter the outcome. The court examined the circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the appellant, and the severity of the sentence imposed. It was noted that the appellant had a history of violent behaviour, which contributed to the court's decision not to suspend the sentence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and did not need to be altered on appeal.

As a result of the High Court's findings, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld, and he was required to serve the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate sentence, but in this instance, found no grounds for altering the sentence imposed by the lower court.

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.