Legal Research
Cases
Joyce v Gee

Joyce v Gee

Case [2010] WASC 76 30 March 2010

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: JOYCE -v- GEE [2010] WASC 76

CORAM: MAZZA J

HEARD: 22 & 30 MARCH 2010

DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2010

FILE NO/S: SJA 1128 of 2009

BETWEEN: JONATHON CHARLES JOYCE
Appellant
AND
EDWARD ADAM GEE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P S MICHELIDES
File No  :FR 11872 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Plea of guilty to wilful and unlawful damage to property - Whether learned magistrate erred as to the facts - Whether learned magistrate made errors of law - Error of fact established - Proviso - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2), s 40(1)(e)
Criminal Code (WA), s 378, s 426(4), s 444(b)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 86

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr M G Nicol

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Moody v French [2008] WASCA 67; (2008) 36 WAR 393
Powell v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASC 54
Pustkuchen v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 11
Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139
Wallam v Dent [2008] WASC 170

MAZZA J:
(Delivered orally shortly after the conclusion of submissions and edited from the transcript.)

The appellant, at all times in this appeal, has represented himself.
On 8 September 2009, the appellant appeared in the Fremantle Magistrates Court to face two charges. The first charge, which is the only one the subject of this appeal, FR 11872 of 2009, alleged that, on 31 December 2008 at Munster, contrary to s 444(b) of the Criminal Code (WA), the appellant:
[W]ilfully and unlawfully damaged the front passenger door window of a Ford Falcon registration number 1COU 141, the value of such damage amounting to $250 the property of Hills Pet Nutrition Pty Ltd.
The second charge, FR 11873 of 2009, alleged that, on the same date and place as the first charge, contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code, the appellant:
[S]tole $400, Nokia 6200 mobile telephone, Medicare card, a Rockman store card, WA MDL in the name of victim, brown tan coloured purse, black leather handbag and a set of keys, to the value of $700, the property of Kylie Thompson.
The appellant's appearance was his first for these charges. He was represented by duty counsel. Duty counsel entered pleas of guilty on behalf of the appellant. The summary conviction penalty for the offence of wilful damage is 3 years' imprisonment and a fine of $36,000. The summary conviction penalty for stealing property worth $1,000 or less is a fine of $6,000: s 426(4) Criminal Code.
The learned magistrate sentenced the appellant to 2 months' imprisonment on FR 11872 of 2009 cumulative upon a 28‑month sentence of imprisonment he was then serving. On FR 11873 of 2009 the learned…

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 Joyce v Gee

Details

AGLC: Joyce v Gee [2010] WASC 76
Case: [2010] WASC 76
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Joyce v Gee was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant, Joyce, sought to appeal against his sentence imposed by the learned magistrate following his plea of guilty to wilful and unlawful damage to property. The appellant argued that the magistrate had erred in the assessment of facts and potentially made errors of law during the sentencing process. The primary focus of the appeal was whether the magistrate's findings were correct and whether any errors made were significant enough to warrant a revision of the sentence.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate had erred in fact or in law, and if so, whether such errors warranted a re-assessment of the sentence. The court needed to determine whether the magistrate's findings were based on a correct understanding of the facts and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of any identified errors on the overall sentence.

In considering these issues, the court found that while the magistrate had indeed erred in certain factual assessments, these errors did not rise to the level of affecting the overall outcome of the sentence. The court held that the errors did not undermine the fundamental basis of the sentence, and thus, the proviso applied. The appeal was dismissed as the court concluded that the errors did not materially affect the sentence imposed. As a result, the original sentence remained intact, and the appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders