Legal Research
Cases
Pillage v Coyne

Pillage v Coyne

Case [2000] WASCA 135 19 May 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

PILLAGE -v- COYNE [2000] WASCA 135

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 135
Case No:	SJA:1020/2000	Heard:	3 MAY 2000
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	19/05/00
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Decision to impose no sentences set asideFines of $750 and $250 substituted
PDF Version

Parties:	TROY CHRISTOPHER PILLAGE HARLEY PETER COYNE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Decision to impose no sentence Sentencing Act 1995, s 46 No reasons given Whether offences "trivial" or "technical" Breaches of restraining order Importance of appropriate penalties
Legislation:	Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 Justices Act 1902 (WA) Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 46
Case References:	Bembridge v G-K-R Karate Australia Pty Ltd (1998) 103 A Crim R 362 Dawes v Coyne [2000] WASCA 134 Kenny v Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990113; 12 March 1999 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Teede v Wright [1999] WASCA 121 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : PILLAGE -v- COYNE [2000] WASCA 135 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 3 MAY 2000 DELIVERED : 19 MAY 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1020 of 2000 BETWEEN : TROY CHRISTOPHER PILLAGE

Appellant

AND

HARLEY PETER COYNE

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Decision to impose no sentence - Sentencing Act 1995, s 46 - No reasons given - Whether offences "trivial" or "technical" - Breaches of restraining order - Importance of appropriate penalties

Legislation:

Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994

Justices Act 1902 (WA)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 46

Result:

Appeal allowed

Decision to impose no sentences set aside
Fines of $750 and $250 substituted

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms C J Thatcher

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Crown Solicitor

Respondent : No appearance

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

Bembridge v G-K-R Karate Australia Pty Ltd (1998) 103 A Crim R 362
Dawes v Coyne [2000] WASCA 134
Kenny v Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990113; 12 March 1999
Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997
Teede v Wright [1999] WASCA 121

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: The respondent was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions at Albany with one offence of unlawful assault and four offences of breaching a violence restraining order. The matter proceeded to a defended hearing before Mr R H Burton SM in the Court of Petty Sessions at Albany on 21 January 2000. After hearing evidence from the complainant in the matter, one Belinda Jane Dawes, and having considered a video-taped record of interview made by the respondent with investigating police officers, the learned Magistrate dismissed the charge of assault and two of the charges of alleged breach of the violence restraining order, but convicted the respondent 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 Pillage v Coyne

Details

AGLC: Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135
Case: [2000] WASCA 135
Decision Date: 19 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Pillage v Coyne, the appellant sought judicial review of a decision by a magistrate not to impose any sentence on the respondent for two breaches of a restraining order. The court was required to determine whether the magistrate erred in law by not providing reasons for the decision to impose no sentence and whether the offences were so trivial or technical that they warranted no penalty. The appellant argued that the lack of reasons for the decision meant the court had not considered the need for appropriate penalties for breaches of restraining orders, which are designed to protect victims of family violence. The court found that the magistrate had indeed erred by not providing reasons for the decision, as required by section 46 of the Sentencing Act 1995. The court also considered the nature of the offences and concluded that, while the breaches were serious, the lack of reasons meant the appropriate penalties were not properly considered. The appeal was allowed, and the decision to impose no sentences was set aside. In its place, fines of $750 and $250 were substituted for the two breaches.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Decision to impose no sentences set asideFines of $750 and $250 substituted

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135

Most Recent Citation

Cullen v Rollings [2009] WASC 80

Cases citing this decision · 25 of 25 shown

Thompson v WA Police
[2024] WASC 476 Para 3

…of the RO Act: The Restraining Orders Act is legislation of the utmost importance as part of the legal response to domestic violence: Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27, 32 [13]. Deliberate breaches of court orders or police orders made under the Act undermine the efficacy of such orders. Dete…
Marich v WA Police
[2024] WASC 173 Para 9

…m family violence, they would continue to feel unsafe after the police have acted and the court has granted that protection. [26] See Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135 [13] - [14].…
O'Driscoll v WA Police
[2023] WASC 456 Para 2

…is of the upmost importance.[30] The intention of Parliament is clear. Offenders who repeatedly breach FRVOs will be imprisoned. [30] Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27, 32, [13].…
Sellenger v Turner
[2021] WASC 308 Para 4

…ach them without suffering any real consequence then there will be little incentive to be compliant. [30] Smartt v Sloane [32] citing Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 1113 A Crim R 27 [13]; Rogers v Hitchcock [2015] WASC 120 [46].…
Stockley v Bailey
[2020] WASC 193 Para 7

…e and abhorrence, in the hope that the penalties deter offenders and protect victims. [35] Dennis v Lanternier [No 2] [152]; see also Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27 [14].…
Howell v Davies
[2019] WASC 220 Para 4

…ogers at [46]: The Restraining Orders Act is legislation of the utmost importance as part of the legal response to domestic violence: Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135;(2000) 113 A Crim R 27, 32 [13]. Deliberate breaches of court orders or police orders made under the Act undermine the efficacy of such orders. Deter…
Smartt v Sloane
[2019] WASC 35 Para 5

…ence that restraining orders will be obeyed and complied with' and 'there must be significant consequences' when they are not.[4] [4] Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27 [14].…
Briggs v Houlihan
[2018] WASC 301 Para 3

…erate breaches of court orders or police orders made under the Restraining Orders Act undermine the efficacy of such orders.[36] [35] Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27, 32 [13]. [36] Rogers v Hitchcock [2015] WASC 120, [46].…
Debono v Southam
[2018] WASC 266 Para 11

…a broadly similar range of seriousness to the offences.[34] [33] Kenny v Lewis (Unreported, WASC, Library No 990113, 12 March 1999); Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; Dominik v Volpi [2004] WASCA 18; Forward v Bower [2007] WASC 205; Cullen v Rollings [2009] WASC 80; Sakkers v Thornton [2009] WASC 175; Bastin v Edw…
Salkilld v The State of Western Australia
[2017] WASCA 168 Para 4

…ce, in the hope that the penalties deter offenders and protect victims. [52] Dennis v Lanternier [No 2] [2017] WASC 5 [152]; see also Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27 [14].…
Bindai v Jugarie
[2016] WADC 68

…HCA 30 Girando v Girando (1997) 18 WAR 450 Lackovic v Insurance Commission (WA) (2006) 31 WAR 460 McWaters v Shirley [2005] WASC 188 Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135 R v Theophanous [2003] VSCA 78; (2003) 141 A Crim R 216 Re Burton; Ex parte Lowe [2003] WASCA 306 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and I…
Conomy v Maden
[2015] WASC 178

…is social legislation of the utmost importance as part of the legal response to domestic violence: Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135 [13] (Miller J); it is essential the courts ensure their orders are not ignored: Kenny v Lewis (Unreported, WASC, Library No 990133, 12 March 1999) (Kennedy J) 10; and violence restrai…
Bernard v WILLIAMS
[2015] WASC 182 Para 15

…61A. The offence of 30 January was also committed within two weeks of Mr Bernard being before the court for two earlier breaches. In Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27, in a passage frequently cited, Miller J described the Restraining Orders Act as social legislation of the utmost importance:…
Day v Millson
[2015] WASC 183 Para 20

…, but it is not mitigating. In any event, her Honour clearly took it into account. Reference should be made to Miller J's decision in Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27 where, in a passage frequently cited, his Honour said that 'the community must have confidence that restraining orders will b…
Rogers v Hitchcock
[2015] WASC 120 Para 7

…The Restraining Orders Act is legislation of the utmost importance as part of the legal response to domestic violence: Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135; (2000) 113 A Crim R 27, 32 [13]. Deliberate breaches of court orders or police orders made under the Act undermine the efficacy of such orders. Deterrence both per…
Sims v Keene
[2014] WASC 248 Para 5

…t [1999] WASCA 121; Bembridge v G‑K‑R Karate Australia Pty Ltd (1998) 103 A Crim R 362; O'Brien v Ostorowski [1999] WASCA 184 and Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135. It is apparent from that review that her Honour ultimately concluded that the word 'technical' when used in s 46 of the Sentencing Act required the cour…
Isenhood v Green
[2011] WASC 70 Para 8

…[I]s one recognising that the Act is social legislation of the utmost importance as part of the legal response to domestic violence: Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135 [13] (Miller J); it is essential the courts ensure their orders are not ignored: Kenny v Lewis (Unreported, WASC, Library No 990113, 12 March 1999) (…
Hagart v Viles [No 2]
[2010] WASC 313 Para 4

…[I]s one recognising that the Act is social legislation of the utmost importance as part of the legal response to domestic violence: Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135 [13] (Miller J); it is essential the courts ensure their orders are not ignored: Kenny v Lewis (Unreported, WASC, Library No 990113, 12 March 1999) (…
Lutey v Jacques
[2010] WASC 78 Para 14

…ch is one recognising that the Act is social legislation of the utmost importance as part of the legal response to domestic violence: Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135 [13] (Miller J); it is essential the courts ensure their orders are not ignored: Kenny v Lewis (Unreported, WASC, Library No 990113, 12 March 1999) (…
Cullen v Rollings
[2009] WASC 80 Para 12

…order had a duration of greater than 72 hours, $6,000 or imprisonment for 18 months, the significance of the RO Act was described in Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135, a case involving breaches of a violence restraining order, at [13] (Miller J) as follows: There is no doubt that the Restraining Orders Act 1997 is…
Gordon v Hales
[2006] NTSC 22

…Pillage v Coyne (2000) 113 A Crim R 27; Piva v Brinkworth (1992) 59 SASR 92, considered REPRESENTATION: Counsel: Appellant:P Dwyer Respondent: E Armitage Solicitors: Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Judgment category classification: B Judgment…
Brown v Roe
[2004] WASCA 210

…Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135 R v Gould [1960] Qd R 283 Saibu v R (1993) 10 WAR 279 Verdon v R (1987) 30 A Crim R 388 Nil…
Curby v Richards-Scully
[2002] WASCA 166

…Mercer v Scantlebury, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980414 (Murray J); 23 July 1998 Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246 Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135…
Gregg Jonathon Barclay v Constable Adam Drummond West
[2001] ACTSC 89 Para 1

…978) 18 SASR 233 where the expression of factors influencing courts of summary jurisdiction was said to be desirable with Miller J in Pillage v Coyne [2000] WASCA 135 where a magistrate’s failure to give reasons why preconditions to the imposition of no penalty was a sufficient ground for allowing the appeal.…
Voges v King
[2001] WASCA 201

…27 MVR 246 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Furtak v Timmers [2001] WASCA 65 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Pillage v Coyne (2000) 113 A Crim R 27 Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659 Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt…

View all 25 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 3 of 3 shown

Dawes v Coyne
[2000] WASCA 134

…Bembridge v G-K-R Karate Australia Pty Ltd (1998) 103 A Crim R 362 Dawes v Coyne [2000] WASCA 134 Kenny v Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990113; 12 March 1999 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Teede v Wright [1999] WASCA 121 Nil…
Teede v Wright
[1999] WASCA 121

…Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990113; 12 March 1999 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Teede v Wright [1999] WASCA 121 Nil…
Bell v Stewart
[1920] HCA 68

…ation of the Rules.' The definition accords with the use of the term in related areas, for example, a technical contempt of Court, see Bell v Stewart (1920) 28 CLR 419 per Isaacs and Rich JJ at 434.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)
61 2 mentions
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
46 2 mentions
Door Trading Act 1987 (WA)
1 mention
Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA)
1 mention
Justices Act 1902 (NSW)
1 mention