RISELEY -v- GILL [2015] WASC 342

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 342
Published:	14/09/2015
Case No:	SJA:1073/2014	Heard:	7 SEPTEMBER 2015
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	7/09/15
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL JAMES RISELEY DARREN STEPHEN GILL
Catchwords:	Criminal law and sentencing Assaulting a public officer Term of immediate imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day Whether magistrate erred in not suspending the term of imprisonment Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 318
Case References:	Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 GJT v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 263 Quinn v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 99 Skipworth v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 64 The State of Western Australia v Johnson [2009] WASCA 224

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : RISELEY -v- GILL [2015] WASC 342 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 7 SEPTEMBER 2015 DELIVERED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2015 PUBLISHED : 14 SEPTEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : SJA 1073 of 2014 BETWEEN : MICHAEL JAMES RISELEY

Appellant

AND

DARREN STEPHEN GILL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE R G BAYLY

File No : JB 162 of 2013, JB 164 of 2013, JB 165 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law and sentencing - Assaulting a public officer - Term of immediate imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day - Whether magistrate erred in not suspending the term of imprisonment - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 318

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms M R Barone

Respondent : Mr L M Fox

Solicitors:

Appellant : Barone Criminal Lawyers

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
GJT v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 263
Quinn v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 99
Skipworth v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 64
The State of Western Australia v Johnson [2009] WASCA 224

BEECH J

: (These reasons were delivered orally and have been edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

1 On 4 September 2014, Mr Riseley was convicted of one count of assaulting a public officer, one count of common assault and one count of obstructing police. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day for the offence of assaulting a public officer; 5 months for the common assault and 1 month for the obstructing police offence. The terms of imprisonment were concurrent, so that the total effective sentence was 6 months and 1 day.

2 Mr Riseley appeals against those sentences on the ground that the magistrate erred in not ordering that…

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 Riseley v Gill

Details

AGLC: Riseley v Gill [2015] WASC 342
Case: [2015] WASC 342
Decision Date: 14 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Riseley v Gill, the appellant was convicted of assaulting a police officer and was sentenced to six months and one day of imprisonment by the Magistrates’ Court. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the magistrate erred in not suspending the term of imprisonment. The dispute centres on whether the magistrate should have exercised their discretion to suspend the sentence and instead imposed a community-based order. The Supreme Court was required to examine the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine if the magistrate’s decision was correct. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Supreme Court held that the magistrate's decision was not erroneous, as the sentence reflected the need for punishment and general deterrence in light of the gravity of the assault on a public officer. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.