Littlely v The State of Western Australia

In the case of Littlely v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, Braeden John Littlely, appealed against his sentence of 18 months' immediate imprisonment for unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to Dustin Peter Free, contrary to s 297(1) of the Criminal Code (WA). The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, with Buss P, Mazza JA, and Hall J presiding. The appellant relied on three grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge erred in considering previous sentencing decisions of the court; (2) the trial judge erred in making findings about the force of the punch which caused the grievous bodily harm; and (3) the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that none of the grounds had a reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant's first ground of appeal alleged that the trial judge erred in her consideration of previous sentencing decisions by not taking into account or not placing sufficient weight upon the differences between those cases and the appellant's case. The court found that the trial judge had reviewed the authorities and considered relevant previous sentencing decisions, and therefore, the first ground of appeal was without merit.

The second ground of appeal alleged that the trial judge was not entitled to find that the punch inflicted by the appellant on Mr. Free must have been a forceful punch because there was neither medical evidence nor expert evidence as to the degree of force required to result in the injury suffered by Mr. Free. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to make the findings based on the evidence of Mr. Free and Dr. Marcus Tong at the trial and the nature and extent of the injuries Mr. Free suffered.

The third ground of appeal alleged that the sentence of 18 months' immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court considered the maximum penalty for the offence, the facts and circumstances of the offending, the standards of sentencing customarily observed, the place which the appellant's offending occupies on the relevant scale of seriousness, the appellant's personal circumstances and antecedents, and all other mitigating factors. The court found that it was reasonably open to the trial judge to conclude that it was inappropriate to suspend or conditionally suspend the sentence of imprisonment, and the length of the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore, leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.