KITTS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 113

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 113
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:29/2000	Heard:	3 APRIL 2000
Coram:	WALLWORK J MURRAY J SCOTT J	Delivered:	5/05/00
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
PDF Version

Parties:	GEORGE CLIFFORD KITTS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Assault occasioning bodily harm Applicant "king hit" complainant after earlier aggressive behaviour Complainant suffered serious injury Applicant intoxicated Sentence of 18 months imprisonment upheld No ground for suspension of sentence established
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Hodges [1999] WASCA 278 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46 Dickman v Turton & Anor [2000] WASCA 1 Esther Invesments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189 Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 Narkle v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6108 R v P (1992) 39 FCR 276

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KITTS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 113 CORAM : WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

SCOTT J

HEARD : 3 APRIL 2000 DELIVERED : 5 MAY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 29 of 2000 BETWEEN : GEORGE CLIFFORD KITTS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Applicant "king hit" complainant after earlier aggressive behaviour - Complainant suffered serious injury - Applicant intoxicated - Sentence of 18 months imprisonment upheld - No ground for suspension of sentence established

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms K George

Respondent : Mr M Mischin

Solicitors:

Applicant : Corsers

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
R v Hodges [1999] WASCA 278
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394

Case(s) also cited:

AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46
Dickman v Turton & Anor [2000] WASCA 1
Esther Invesments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189
Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007
Narkle v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6108
R v P (1992) 39 FCR 276

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Murray J. There is nothing I wish to add.

2 MURRAY J: On 2 February in the District Court at Kalgoorlie the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. He was sentenced to a…

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 Kitts v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Kitts v The Queen [2000] WASCA 113
Case: [2000] WASCA 113
Decision Date: 5 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Kitts, was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm, following an incident where he delivered a "king hit" to the complainant, causing serious injury. The High Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the appropriateness of the 18-month imprisonment sentence imposed on Kitts. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the assault, and whether the applicant's intoxication at the time of the offence warranted a lesser sentence. The court also needed to determine if the sentence could be suspended, based on the evidence presented.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The judge found that while the applicant's intoxication was a mitigating factor, it did not warrant a lesser sentence, as it did not negate the applicant's responsibility for his actions. Furthermore, the court determined that no ground for suspending the sentence had been established, as the circumstances of the case did not warrant such a course of action. Consequently, the High Court upheld the original sentence and dismissed the appeal. The court granted leave to appeal but ultimately refused it, as the sentence was deemed appropriate and just under the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.