Malpuss v Giuffre

Case [2020] WASC 303


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   MALPUSS -v- GIUFFRE [2020] WASC 303

CORAM:   MCGRATH J

HEARD:   3 APRIL 2020 & 22 MAY 2020

DELIVERED          :   21 AUGUST 2020

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1154 of 2019

BETWEEN:   BEN JAYDON MALPUSS

Appellant

AND

PAUL GIUFFRE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram:   MAGISTRATE DE MAIO

File Number            :   JO 12073 of 2018, JO 12074 of 2018, JO 12075 of 2018, JO 12076 of 2018


Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against sentence – Appeal against conviction – Common assault – Section 313(1) of the Criminal Code (WA) – Cruelty to animals – Section 19(1) of the Animals Welfare Act 2002 (WA) – Sentence manifestly excessive – Breach of totality principle – Breach of parity principle – Express errors of law

Legislation:

Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), s 19(1)
Criminal Code (WA), s 5(1), s 5(8), s 301(1)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 4, s 6, s 9, s 9AA, s 39(2), s 42(2)

Result:

Appeal against conviction:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Appeal against sentence:
Leave to appeal granted on grounds 1, 2 and 3
Appeal allowed
Appellant resentenced

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M R Gunning
Respondent : Ms R C Panetta

Solicitors:

Appellant : Gunning Young
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office

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

Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4

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

Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321

Garlett v Balic [2016] WASC 172

Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462

Harrison v Hunter [2012] WASC 166

Higgins v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 78; (2019) 54 WAR 342

Holding v Parkin [2012] WASC 113

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606

Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357

Medanovic v Barrett [2016] WASC 237

Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600

O (a Child) v The Queen (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 970219, 9 April 1997)

Petrusic v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 62

R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30

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

Taylor v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 210

MCGRATH J:

  1. Mr Malpuss was charged with two counts of common assault contrary to s 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (WA),[1] one count of common assault in circumstances of aggravation contrary to s 313(1)(a) of the Criminal Code[2] (the assault charges), and one count of cruelty to an animal contrary to s 19(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA)[3] (the animal cruelty charge).  Mr Malpuss pleaded guilty to the assault charges and was convicted of the animal cruelty charge after trial in the Magistrates Court.  Mr Malpuss…

Continue reading Malpuss v Giuffre

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Malpuss v Giuffre [2020] WASC 303
Case
[2020] WASC 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Malpuss v Giuffre, the respondent, Giuffre, appealed against his conviction and sentence for common assault and animal cruelty. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. The appellant, Malpuss, sought to appeal both the conviction and the sentence imposed on Giuffre for assaulting Malpuss and for causing unnecessary suffering to his dog, contrary to sections 313(1) of the Criminal Code (WA) and 19(1) of the Animals Welfare Act 2002 (WA), respectively.

The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive and whether there was a breach of the totality, parity, and proportionality principles. The court had to determine if there were any errors of law that warranted the intervention of the appellate court. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that there was a breach of the totality and parity principles.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that there was a breach of the totality and parity principles. The court held that the sentence imposed on Giuffre was disproportionate to the offending and did not take into account the totality of the offending. The court also found that there was a breach of the parity principle as the sentence for the animal cruelty offence was significantly higher than the sentence for the assault offence. The court held that there were errors of law in the primary judge's sentencing process that warranted the intervention of the appellate court. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed.

The court ordered a re-sentencing of Giuffre for the common assault and animal cruelty offences. The court directed that the re-sentencing be conducted in accordance with the principles of totality, parity, and proportionality. The court also directed that the re-sentencing take into account the mitigating factors that were identified by the primary judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.