Legal Research
Cases
Shortland v Stone

Shortland v Stone

Case [2019] WASC 217 21 June 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   SHORTLAND -v- STONE [2019] WASC 217
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   20 JUNE 2019
DELIVERED          :   21 JUNE 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1066 of 2019
BETWEEN:   DJON SHORTLAND
Appellant
AND
MATTHEW STONE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE EDWARDS
File Number             :   PE 29617/2018
PE 29618/2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against sentence - Escape lawful custody – Reckless driving - Express error of law - Magistrate failed to take into account early plea of guilty - Manifestly excessive - Appellant re-sentenced

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 9(1), s 9(2), s 14
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 6, s 7(2), s 9AA, s 53

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on grounds one and two
Appeal allowed
The term of imprisonment imposed on charge PE 29617/2018 is set aside and in lieu thereof a term of imprisonment of 2 months is imposed to be served cumulatively on the term of imprisonment of 6 months imposed on charge PE 29618/2018

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms N R Sinton
Respondent	:	Mr B M Murray

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Abraham v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 151; 244 A Crim R 1
Boyle v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 97
Burrows v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 147
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Councillor v Hart [2018] WASC 418
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Donnachy v Riegert & Anor [2004] WASCA 48; 144 A Crim R 260
Fullgrabe v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 138
Hansen v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 205
Hooker v The Police [2006] WASC 188
Krakouer v Durka (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980595, 14 October 1998)
Krijestorac v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 35
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Paskov v Hull [2008] WASC 163
Roberts v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 239
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Voisey v Taylor (Unreported, WASC, Library No 8273, 30 May 1990)
Winmar v Clark [2015] WASC 314
Woods v Glynn [2007] WASC 136

MCGRATH J:

Mr Shortland was charged with two offences, being one charge of wilfully driving a motor vehicle in a reckless manner contrary to s 60(1A)(b) of the Road Traffic Act1974 (WA)[1] and one charge of escape from lawful custody contrary to s 146 of the Criminal Code (WA).[2] On 12 April 2019, Mr Shortland pleaded guilty to the two charges and was sentenced to a term…

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 Shortland v Stone

Details

AGLC: Shortland v Stone [2019] WASC 217
Case: [2019] WASC 217
Decision Date: 21 JUNE 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Shortland v Stone, the appellant was convicted of escaping lawful custody and reckless driving. The case was heard by the court of appeal, where the appellant contested the severity of the sentence imposed by the magistrate. The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the magistrate's failure to take into account the appellant's early plea of guilty constituted an error of law and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court needed to determine if the sentence imposed was unjust and required reconsideration.

The court found that the magistrate did indeed err by not considering the appellant's early plea of guilty, which should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. The court emphasised the importance of recognising such pleas as a mitigating factor. Furthermore, the court assessed the overall sentence and found it to be manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the sentence did not appropriately balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors present.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the appellant. The re-sentence was deemed more proportionate to the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding them. The court's decision highlighted the importance of proper sentencing considerations, including the recognition of early pleas of guilty, to ensure just outcomes in criminal cases.

Orders