Legal Research
Cases
Regnault v Curley

Regnault v Curley

Case [2020] WASC 146 11 May 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   REGNAULT -v- CURLEY [2020] WASC 146
CORAM:   ARCHER J
HEARD:   29 APRIL 2020
DELIVERED          :   29 APRIL 2020
PUBLISHED           :   11 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1141 of 2019
BETWEEN:   CHANELLE LOUISE REGNAULT
Appellant
AND
JESSICA CURLEY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE G RANDAZZO
File Number            :   PE 33978
PE 33979

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Manifest excessive - Totality principle - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 9, s 14

Result:

Leave to appeal refused in relation to ground 1 and granted in relation to ground 2
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	S Oliver
Respondent	:	M M Yeung

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Francis Burt Chambers
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Allie v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 6
Colwell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2012] WASCA 196
Dimanopoulos v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 62
Gaskell v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 8
Gok v The Queen [2010] WASCA 185
Heaney v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2013] WASCA 238
Heesom v O'Keefe [2017] WASC 362
KAT v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 11
Ninyette v Holmes [2015] WASC 287
Pflug v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 65
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
Thompson v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 68
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
Wiltshire v Mafi [2010] WASCA 111

ARCHER J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously and has been edited from the transcript and references added)

Introduction

The appellant seeks leave to appeal against a total effective sentence of 6 months' imprisonment imposed by his Honour Magistrate Randazzo in relation to two offences of stealing as a servant.
The grounds of appeal are that the total effective sentence was manifestly excessive and the learned magistrate breached the totality principle by ordering the sentence to be served cumulatively on a sentence the appellant was already serving. In the appellant's written submissions, she also submitted that the individual sentences imposed in relation to each offence was manifestly excessive. During the hearing, counsel for the appellant clarified that the appellant only alleged manifest excess in relation to the term of 6 months' imprisonment imposed in relation to the second charge.
The application for leave to appeal was ordered to be heard at the same time as the appeal.

The facts

The appellant was an employee of Direct Image Digital Printing Proprietary Limited from September 2014 to November 2017. She was employed as a receptionist, but it was also her job to pay the wages for the business, including her own.
On 24 November 2017, the appellant was arrested and charged with…

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 Regnault v Curley

Details

AGLC: Regnault v Curley [2020] WASC 146
Case: [2020] WASC 146
Decision Date: 11 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regnault v Curley involved the appellant challenging the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant had been found guilty of multiple counts of serious criminal offences, including armed robbery, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to a total of 18 years' imprisonment. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and this argument was upheld on appeal.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, such that it should be set aside. The appellant's counsel contended that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the totality principle, which requires that the totality of a sentence should not be disproportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence was excessive because it did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors present in the case. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences and that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive. The court held that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the totality principle and had not adequately weighed the mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence. The court noted that the appellant's criminal history and the severity of the offences warranted a lengthy sentence, but the court considered that the 18-year sentence was disproportionate to the totality of the circumstances. The court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to 15 years' imprisonment, which it considered to be more commensurate with the crimes committed and the mitigating factors present.

Orders