Legal Research
Cases
Pedrochi v Brown

Pedrochi v Brown

Case [2021] WASC 81 25 March 2021

Aggravated Assault

Bodily Harm

Non-Fatal Strangulation

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   PEDROCHI -v- BROWN [2021] WASC 81
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
HEARD:   25 MARCH 2021
DELIVERED          :   25 MARCH 2021
PUBLISHED           :   25 MARCH 2021
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1073 of 2020
BETWEEN:   STEVEN ANTHONY PEDROCHI
Appellant

AND

JAMES BROWN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE DE MAIO
File Number            :   JO 4144 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against sentence – Aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm – Family violence –Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal is granted on ground 1
Leave to appeal is granted on ground 2
Appeal is allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	M J Ajduk
Respondent	:	K C Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid WA
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Cases referred to in decision:

Chidoti v Terrey [2018] WASC 332
Duncan v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 154
Elliott v Blanchard [2007] WASC 289
Gillespie v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 216
Hansen v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 170
Kabambi v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 44
McComish v Harman [2016] WASC 324
Messiha v Plaucs [2012] WASC 63
Morgan v Kazandzis [2010] WASC 377
Paskov v Hull [2008] WASC 163
Pureau v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 115
Riddoch v Chiera [2020] WASC 114
Stokes v Auckland [2012] WASC 2
Taylor v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 38
The State of Western Australia v Cheeseman [2011] WASCA 15

QUINLAN CJ:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 25 March 2021 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction and summary

On 16 December 2018, the appellant, Steven Pedrochi, unlawfully assaulted Rebecca Hallam, causing her bodily harm. The assault included the appellant strangling Ms Hallam around the neck, until it was hard for her to breathe, and punching her in the face, causing significant bleeding from Ms Hallam's left eye. In addition to causing Ms Hallam bodily harm, the offence was aggravated by the fact that Ms Hallam and the appellant had been in an intimate personal relationship.
On 8 September 2020, the appellant was convicted, following trial, of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm. On that day, Magistrate De Maio sentenced the appellant to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, backdated to commence on 21 August 2019. The appellant was made eligible for parole.
The appellant now appeals against that sentence. He submits that the sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment was unreasonable or plainly unjust.
It was not.
In my view, while the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate was high, the appellant's attack on Ms Hallam was unprovoked, ferocious and cowardly. It required a firm sentence clearly denouncing such offending. I would not infer any error on her Honour's part. While I would grant leave to appeal, the ground alleging manifest excess should be rejected.
On the day of the hearing, the…

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 Pedrochi v Brown

Details

AGLC: Pedrochi v Brown [2021] WASC 81
Case: [2021] WASC 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Steven Anthony Pedrochi appealed against his sentence imposed by Magistrate De Maio, following a conviction for aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm. Pedrochi contended that the sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the personal circumstances of the appellant, and relevant sentencing principles. The court found that while the sentence was high, the appellant's attack on the victim was unprovoked, ferocious, and cowardly, and therefore required a firm sentence clearly denouncing such offending. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

The court examined the circumstances of the offence, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the sentencing principles in reaching its decision. The court found that the appellant's attack on the victim was unprovoked, sustained, and vicious, and that the offence involved significant power imbalances, was committed behind closed doors, and was accompanied by lies and gas-lighting. The court also found that the appellant had a complete lack of remorse or acceptance of responsibility for his violence. In light of these factors, the court held that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Additionally, the court found that the learned Magistrate had erred in her calculation of the date on which the appellant's sentence was to be backdated. The court accepted the respondent's concession that the appeal should be allowed to correct that mathematical error. As a result, the appeal was allowed in part to make that correction. The sentence was otherwise unchanged.

Orders