SANDLE -v- CROFTS [2001] WASCA 106

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 106
Case No:	SJA:1219/2000	Heard:	9 MARCH 2001
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	30/03/01
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal against conviction dismissed Appeal against sentence dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	CHRISTOPHER BYRON SANDLE GREGORY COLIN CROFTS
Catchwords:	Criminal law Burden of proof Whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory Turns on own facts No new principles Sentence Assault occasioning bodily harm First conviction Whether imprisonment justified Whether sentence should be suspended
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Gallegos v The Queen [1999] WASCA 191 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Kenny v Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA (Kennedy J); Library No 990113; 12 March 1999 Lowndes v The Queen (1997) 195 CLR 665 Bartlett v Scantlebury [2000] WASCA 234 Chereeba Pty Ltd v Ramsay, unreported; SCt of WA (Seaman J); Library No 930127; 5 March 1993 Dunthorne v Carone, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 9171; 5 December 1991 Giannasi v Waghorne, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 960551; 11 September 1996 Lurssen v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 950015; 20 January 1995 Smith v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 527

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : SANDLE -v- CROFTS [2001] WASCA 106 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 9 MARCH 2001 DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1219 of 2000 BETWEEN : CHRISTOPHER BYRON SANDLE

Appellant

AND

GREGORY COLIN CROFTS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Burden of proof - Whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory - Turns on own facts - No new principles - Sentence - Assault occasioning bodily harm - First conviction - Whether imprisonment justified - Whether sentence should be suspended

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Appeal against sentence dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R G W Bayly

Respondent : Mr R G Wilson

Solicitors:

Appellant : Bayly & O'Brien

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Gallegos v The Queen [1999] WASCA 191
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Kenny v Lewis, unreported; SCt of WA (Kennedy J); Library No 990113; 12 March 1999
Lowndes v The Queen (1997) 195 CLR 665

Case(s) also cited:

Bartlett v Scantlebury [2000] WASCA 234
Chereeba Pty Ltd v Ramsay, unreported; SCt of WA (Seaman J); Library No 930127; 5 March 1993
Dunthorne v Carone, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 9171; 5 December 1991
Giannasi v Waghorne, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 960551; 11 September 1996
Lurssen v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 950015; 20 January 1995
Smith v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 527

(Page 3)

McKECHNIE J

Introduction

1 The appellant was charged that on 19 June 2000 at Victoria Park, he unlawfully assaulted Rebecca Louise Sandle, and thereby did her bodily harm.

2 He pleaded not guilty to that charge and on 2…

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 Sandle v Crofts

Details

AGLC: Sandle v Crofts [2001] WASCA 106
Case: [2001] WASCA 106
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sandle v Crofts involved a case before the Court of Appeal of Queensland, where the appellant, Sandle, challenged both his conviction and sentence following an assault occasioning bodily harm. The dispute centred on whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether the sentence was excessive, given that it was Sandle's first conviction and imprisonment was sought.

The court examined whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory by evaluating the evidence presented at trial and determining if the jury could have reasonably reached the conviction based on the facts. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence of imprisonment was justified, taking into account that this was Sandle's first offence and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court also deliberated on whether the sentence should be suspended, considering the nature of the offence and Sandle's criminal history.

In its reasoning, the court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict Sandle, and thus, the verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court further found that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances, and there was no justification for suspending the imprisonment, as it was a matter of public interest to impose a custodial sentence for this type of offence. Consequently, both the appeal against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence, leaving the original verdict and penalty intact.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Appeal against sentence 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.