Legal Research
Cases
Plant v Harrington

Plant v Harrington

Case [2010] WASC 364 7 December 2010

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: PLANT -v- HARRINGTON [2010] WASC 364

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 10 NOVEMBER 2010

DELIVERED : 7 DECEMBER 2010

FILE NO/S: SJA 1062 of 2010

BETWEEN: TEGAN JANE PLANT
Appellant
AND
SEAN ALEXANDER HARRINGTON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE M D WHEELER
File No  :FR 5609 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Unlawful wounding - 'Glassing' - Whether sentence of 8 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive - Whether error in not suspending sentence

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 301
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6(4), s 39, s 76

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S Vandongen
Respondent: Dr N R Barber

Solicitors:

Appellant: Samson Defence Lawyers
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Collins v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 108
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hull v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 194
Johnson v Hayter [2001] WASCA 118
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 299; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Powell v Tickner [2010] WASCA 224
Scolaro v Shephard [No 2] [2010] WASC 271
Skipworth v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 64
Stark v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 44
Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17
Ward v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2010] WASCA 208
Wiltshire v Mafi [2010] WASCA 111

HALL J: On 20 May 2010 the appellant, Tegan Plant, pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful wounding contrary to s 301(1) of the Criminal Code. A presentence report was ordered and on 1 July 2010 a magistrate imposed a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment. The appellant now appeals against that sentence.
An appeal notice was filed on the day the sentence was imposed. On 6 July 2010 the appellant applied for and was granted bail pending the resolution of this appeal. On 12 August 2010 leave to appeal against the sentence was granted by Jenkins J.

Grounds of appeal

The notice of appeal contains two grounds in similar terms. In effect both grounds assert that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive. The first ground claims that a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The second ground claims that a sentence of immediate imprisonment was erroneous because a suspended term of imprisonment was open in the circumstances.
The grounds are as follows:
1.The term of eight months imprisonment imposed upon the Appellant was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the personal circumstances of the Appellant. In particular the Learned Magistrate failed to have sufficient regard to the following:
A.The circumstances of the offence, while serious, were not so serious as to require a sentence of that length having…

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 Plant v Harrington

Details

AGLC: Plant v Harrington [2010] WASC 364
Case: [2010] WASC 364
Decision Date: 7 DECEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the County Court of Victoria, Plant brought proceedings against Harrington, seeking to appeal the sentence imposed upon Harrington for the unlawful wounding of Plant. Harrington had inflicted severe injuries upon Plant by striking him with a glass bottle, an act commonly referred to as a 'glassing'. The appeal centred on whether the sentence of eight months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and whether there was an error in not suspending the sentence.

The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, particularly considering the nature and circumstances of the offence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there was an error in the trial judge's decision not to suspend the sentence, which could have resulted in a more lenient outcome for Harrington. The court was required to weigh the seriousness of the crime, the need for deterrence, and the principles of sentencing proportionality and rehabilitation.

In delivering its decision, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had appropriately considered the severity of the injury caused and the circumstances of the offence, including the use of a glass bottle. The court further found that there was no error in the trial judge's decision not to suspend the sentence. The trial judge had properly assessed the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the importance of upholding the rule of law. The sentence was deemed to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's sentence. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between the need for punishment and the principles of sentencing fairness and proportionality in cases involving serious assaults.

Orders