Panetta v Reid - [2021] WASC 436

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   PANETTA -v- REID & ORS [2021] WASC 436
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   7 DECEMBER 2021
DELIVERED          :   7 DECEMBER 2021
PUBLISHED           :   10 DECEMBER 2021
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1042 of 2021
BETWEEN:   RICHARD CHARLES PANETTA
Appellant

AND

MICHELLE REID
First Respondent

SCOTT LOCKYER
Second Respondent

MICHAEL BICKFORD
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE L KEANE
File Number            :   BU 1480, 1605 and 2297 of 2021

Catchwords:

Criminal Law - Appeal against sentence - Breach of family violence restraining order - Breach of suspended imprisonment orders - Total effective sentence of 15 months' imprisonment - Whether total sentence was unjust or unreasonable

Legislation:

Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
First Respondent	:	Mr B D Nelson
Second Respondent	:	Mr B D Nelson
Third Respondent	:	Mr B D Nelson

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
First Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Second Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Third Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Briggs v Houlihan [2018] WASC 301
Dennis v Lanternier [No 2] [2017] WASC 5
Forward v Bower [2007] WASC 205
Rogers v Hitchcock [2015] WASC 102
Sellenger v Turner [2021] WASC 308
Smartt v Sloane [2019] WASC 35

HALL J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 7 December 2021 and has been edited from the transcript.)

On 18 June 2021 the appellant pleaded guilty to breaching a family violence restraining order contrary to s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). That conviction breached two suspended imprisonment orders for similar offences; one of seven months' imprisonment and one of three months' imprisonment.
The magistrate who dealt with the appellant imposed a sentence of eight months' imprisonment for the primary offence and ordered that the appellant should serve the seven‑month sentence cumulatively and the three-month sentence concurrently. Accordingly, the total effective sentence was 15 months' imprisonment with an order that the appellant be eligible for parole. The sentence was backdated to 23 May 2021 when the appellant first went into custody.
The appellant seeks leave to appeal against the total sentence. He is self‑represented and has prepared the appeal notice and outline of submissions himself. In essence, he asserts that the total sentence was unjust or unreasonable because it was disproportionate to the total offending conduct.
In his written submissions, the appellant advances several reasons why he says the sentence was too long. Firstly, he claims that he did not receive the 25% discount for pleading guilty that was referred to by the magistrate. Secondly, he claims that the magistrate failed to take into account that the argument that was the subject of the primary offence was not with the protected person and that it was not the protected person who called the police. Thirdly, he claims that the magistrate should have ordered all of the sentences to run concurrently.

Facts

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 Panetta v Reid

Details

AGLC: Panetta v Reid [2021] WASC 436
Case: [2021] WASC 436
Decision Date: 10 DECEMBER 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Panetta v Reid, the appellant, Mr. Panetta, was sentenced to imprisonment for breaches of family violence restraining orders and suspended imprisonment orders. The case was heard and determined in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the total effective sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was unjust or unreasonable, given the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate or excessive. The appellant argued that the total sentence was unjust because it failed to adequately account for the suspended nature of the imprisonment orders and the circumstances of the breaches. The court examined the principles of sentencing for breaches of family violence orders and suspended imprisonment, including the need for deterrence, denunciation, and proportionality. The court also took into account the appellant's background, the nature and circumstances of the breaches, and the impact on the victims.

The court concluded that the total sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was not unjust or unreasonable. The primary judge had carefully considered the relevant principles and circumstances of the case, and the sentence reflected the seriousness of the breaches and the need for appropriate deterrence and denunciation. The court noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for such breaches, and there was no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the primary judge.

No further orders were made by the court. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders