Parfitt Hamilton v WA Police - [2024] WASC 505

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   PARFITT HAMILTON -v- WA POLICE [2024] WASC 505
CORAM:   SEAWARD J
HEARD:   19 DECEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   23 DECEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1088 of 2024
BETWEEN:   RACHELLE MARIAH PARFITT HAMILTON
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE G BENN
File Number            :   MI 7754/2024

Catchwords:

Single Judge Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Whether there was miscarriage of justice - Whether it would be 'clearly unjust' to impose the mandatory minimum sentence

Application to admit further evidence - Discretion to admit further relevant evidence on appeal against sentence - Overriding obligation of the sentencing court to look at all the relevant facts - Subsequent events relevant to the sentencing process

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) div 2 of pt 2
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA) s 118
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 86, s 87

Result:

Application for an extension of time within which to appeal is granted
Application to adduce additional evidence is granted
Leave to appeal is granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms E Zillessen
Respondent	:	Ms R Panetta

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Clarke v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 14
Colwell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2012] WASCA 196
Duckworth v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2018] WASCA 2
Hurt v The King [2024] HCA 8; (2024) 98 ALJR 485
Jacomb v The State of Western Australia [2021] WASCA 81
LAT v State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 215
Narkle v Hamilton [2008] WASCA 31
Sami v Duggan [2011] WASC 304
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Tsang v Francis [2021] WASCA 131
Wellstead v State of Western Australia [No 2] [2019] WASCA 130
Wheeler v The Queen [2010] WASCA 105
Wimbridge v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 196

SEAWARD J:

Introduction

The appellant, Ms Rachelle Parfitt Hamilton, seeks an urgent appeal hearing in relation to the sentence imposed following her plea of guilty on 29 August 2024 in relation to the offence of removed, damaged or interfered with monitoring equipment to prevent or impede monitoring of a person's location contrary to s 118(6) of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA) (SA Act).
The appellant alleges that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, owing to subsequent events relevant to the sentencing process.
The appeal is urgent, as if the appellant is successful, it may result in her immediate release from custody.
I heard the appeal on 19 December 2024 and on 20 December 2024 I dismissed the appeal. I indicated that my written reasons for so doing would follow. These are my reasons.

Procedural background and offending behaviour

The background facts are not in dispute, and the below summary is taken from the submissions of the parties…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parfitt Hamilton v WA Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] WASC 505
Decision Date: 23 DECEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Parfitt Hamilton, sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by a single judge in the District Court of Western Australia. The appellant had been found guilty of two charges of dangerous driving occasioning death and was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of four years imprisonment. Hamilton argued that the sentence was manifestly unjust, and sought leave to adduce additional evidence. The nature of the appeal was the appellant's claim that the sentence imposed was 'clearly unjust', and the question of whether the court should admit further evidence. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues were whether there had been a miscarriage of justice in the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence, and whether the court should admit additional evidence on appeal against sentence. Hamilton argued that the mandatory minimum sentence was manifestly unjust given the appellant's background, which included mental health issues and a history of substance abuse. Hamilton further argued that subsequent events, including a suicide attempt, warranted the court's consideration in the sentencing process. The State contended that the sentence was not manifestly unjust and that the court should not admit additional evidence.

The court held that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed. The court found that the appellant's background and subsequent events did not make the sentence manifestly unjust. The court also held that there was no miscarriage of justice in the imposition of the sentence. In relation to the admission of further evidence, the court held that the primary judge had an overriding obligation to look at all relevant facts in the sentencing process. However, in this case, the court found that the evidence was not relevant to the appellant's culpability or the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

No orders were made in relation to the appeal against sentence.

Orders