Legal Research
Cases
Robinson v Smith

Robinson v Smith

Case [2005] WASC 99 20 May 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ROBINSON -v- SMITH [2005] WASC 99

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 99
Case No:	SJA:1024/2005	Heard:	4 MAY 2005
Coram:	JENKINS J	Delivered:	20/05/05
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER FLOYD ROBINSON TROY NICHOLAS SMITH
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal Appeal against conviction "Bodily harm" Appeal against sentence Sentence of imprisonment Whether sentence manifestly excessive
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 317(1) Justices Act 1902
Case References:	Brown v Blake [2000] WASCA 132 Scatchard v The Queen (1987) 27 A Crim R 136 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Blackstock v Foster (1958) 58 SR(NSW) 341 Gardner v Caporn [2004] WASCA 14 R v Harm (1975) 13 SASR 84 R v Inch (1990) 91 Cr App Rep 51 Smejlis v Matthews [2004] WASCA 158

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ROBINSON -v- SMITH [2005] WASC 99 CORAM : JENKINS J HEARD : 4 MAY 2005 DELIVERED : 20 MAY 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1024 of 2005 MATTER : Justices Act 1902 BETWEEN : PETER FLOYD ROBINSON

Appellant

AND

TROY NICHOLAS SMITH

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : DR K AUTY SM

File No : KA 4156 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Appeal against conviction - "Bodily harm" - Appeal against sentence - Sentence of imprisonment - Whether sentence manifestly excessive

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004

Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 317(1)
Justices Act 1902

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A M Dungey

Respondent : Ms C Barbagallo

Solicitors:

Appellant : Macdonald Rudder

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Brown v Blake [2000] WASCA 132
Scatchard v The Queen (1987) 27 A Crim R 136
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Case(s) also cited:

Blackstock v Foster (1958) 58 SR(NSW) 341
Gardner v Caporn [2004] WASCA 14
R v Harm (1975) 13 SASR 84
R v Inch (1990) 91 Cr App Rep 51
Smejlis v Matthews [2004] WASCA 158

(Page 3)

1 JENKINS J: This is an appeal from the decision of a Magistrate sitting in the Court of Petty Sessions at Kalgoorlie on 15 February 2005. On complaint number 4156 of 2004, being a charge of assault occasioning bodily harm, the Magistrate, after convicting the appellant of the offence, sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for 12 months and 1 day.

Grounds of Appeal

2 There is one ground of appeal against conviction being that the Magistrate erred in finding that the complainant suffered bodily harm. It is alleged, in this respect, that the Magistrate first erred in not considering whether an assault, other than that found to have been committed by the appellant, could have caused the symptoms in the complainant's throat and secondly erred in determining that those symptoms amounted…

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 Robinson v Smith

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Smith [2005] WASC 99
Case: [2005] WASC 99
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robinson v Smith was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Peter Floyd Robinson, the appellant, was convicted by a Magistrate in the Court of Petty Sessions of assault occasioning bodily harm and was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months and 1 day. The appellant appealed both his conviction and the sentence. The primary legal issues were whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the complainant suffered bodily harm and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the Magistrate did not err in finding that the complainant suffered bodily harm. There was sufficient evidence to show that the appellant's assault caused the complainant's symptoms, and the term "bodily harm" was properly interpreted by the Magistrate to include physical injury that interferes with health or comfort. As for the sentence, the court found that the Magistrate appropriately considered the nature of the assault and the surrounding circumstances, which warranted a more severe penalty due to the appellant's prior criminal history. The sentence of 12 months and 1 day was deemed neither manifestly excessive nor an error of principle.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders