McKinley v Edmonds - [2014] WASC 43

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: McKINLEY -v- EDMONDS [2014] WASC 43

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 4 FEBRUARY 2014

DELIVERED : 4 FEBRUARY 2014

FILE NO/S: SJA 1149 of 2013

BETWEEN: JOEL ROSS McKINLEY
Appellant
AND
RYAN JAMES EDMONDS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE E K LANGDON
File No  :FR 7989 of 2013, FR 7990 of 2013, FR 4063 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Aggravated burglary and stealing - Offences committed on commercial premises - 8 months' imprisonment - Whether magistrate failed to consider a suspended sentence - Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr T McArthur

Solicitors:

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

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

Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Main v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 28
Pennetta v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 234
Ridley v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 45
Rodenburg‑Hill v WA Police [2009] WASC 330
Thompson v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 1
HALL J:
(These reasons were delivered orally and have been edited from the transcript)

On 26 November 2013, the appellant was sentenced to a total effective term of 8 months' imprisonment in the Fremantle Magistrates Court. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.
The offences for which the appellant was sentenced were one count of aggravated burglary, charge number FR7989/13, for which he received 8 months' imprisonment, one count of wilful and unlawful damage, charge number FR7990/13, for which no penalty was imposed and two counts of stealing, charges number FR7991/13, for which he received 3 months' imprisonment concurrent and R04063/13, for which he received 1 month's imprisonment concurrent.

Facts

The facts of the offending were not disputed and can be summarised as follows. At about 2.25 am on Monday, 13 May 2013, the appellant was in company with another when he went to a store in Armadale Road, Jandakot. He and his co‑offender used an angle grinder to cut the rear roller door of the premises and entered the store. They then went to the office area of the premises and smashed a locked door. Upon entry into the office the appellant and the co‑offender attempted to open a safe. This was done by use of the angle grinder, a sledgehammer and a crowbar. Whilst the appellant and his co‑offender were not successful in breaking open the safe, it was damaged beyond repair. They then both left the scene. The incident was caught on closed circuit television.
Police attended the appellant's home on 10 July 2013 in relation to another matter and located the angle grinder. Further investigations identified the appellant's DNA located inside a glove which had been left at the premises on 13 May 2013.
The amount of…

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 McKinley v Edmonds

Details

AGLC: McKinley v Edmonds [2014] WASC 43
Case: [2014] WASC 43
Decision Date: 4 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McKinley and Edmonds were involved in a legal dispute that was ultimately heard by the court. McKinley appealed against a sentence imposed on him following convictions for aggravated burglary and stealing from commercial premises. The court was tasked with determining whether the magistrate had erred in imposing a custodial sentence of 8 months' imprisonment and whether this sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the possibility of a suspended sentence. The key legal issues before the court centred on the adequacy of the sentence imposed, the magistrate's consideration of alternative sentencing options, and the overall proportionality of the sentence.

The court considered the nature of the offences, which involved serious criminal activity against commercial premises, as well as the need for deterrence and denunciation. It examined whether the magistrate had adequately considered the possibility of a suspended sentence, which could have been appropriate given certain mitigating factors. The court also assessed the principle of proportionality, weighing the gravity of the offences against the sentence imposed. Ultimately, the court found that the magistrate had indeed failed to sufficiently consider a suspended sentence and that the 8-month imprisonment term was manifestly excessive. This conclusion was based on a detailed analysis of the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing.

In light of these findings, the court quashed the sentence and remitted the matter to the original sentencing court for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of proper consideration of all available sentencing options and the need for a sentence that is proportionate to the offence committed. This decision highlights the importance of a thorough and balanced approach to sentencing in criminal cases, particularly where alternative options such as suspended sentences may be appropriate.

Orders