SLATER -v- WHITEHEAD & ANOR [1999] WASCA 69

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 69
Published:	21/06/1999
Case No:	SJA:1036/1999	Heard:	21 MAY 1999
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	21/05/99
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	VALMA MARY SLATER DAVID WHITEHEAD IAN PETER OZANNE
Catchwords:	Road traffic Driving under suspension and DUI Sentence of imprisonment Turns on own facts No new principles
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 Sentencing Act 1995
Case References:	O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999 Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990001; 13 January 1999 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Khan v Yates, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950600; 8 November 1995 Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998 Narrier v Fallows, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970175; 11 April 1997 Nye v Lewis (1987) 4 MVR 511 Pink v Webb, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8207; 20 April 1990 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : SLATER -v- WHITEHEAD & ANOR [1999] WASCA 69 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 21 MAY 1999 DELIVERED : 21 MAY 1999 PUBLISHED : 21 JUNE 1999 FILE NO/S : SJA 1036 of 1999 BETWEEN : VALMA MARY SLATER

Appellant

AND

DAVID WHITEHEAD

IAN PETER OZANNE

Respondents

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Driving under suspension and DUI - Sentence of imprisonment - Turns on own facts - No new principles

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974

Sentencing Act 1995

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr N J Lemmon

Respondents : Ms C L Bathurst

Solicitors:

Appellant : McDonald & Sutherland

Respondents : State Crown Solicitor

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

O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999

Case(s) also cited:

Calway v Wiebe, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990001; 13 January 1999
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Khan v Yates, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950600; 8 November 1995
Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998
Narrier v Fallows, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970175; 11 April 1997
Nye v Lewis (1987) 4 MVR 511
Pink v Webb, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8207; 20 April 1990
R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: The appellant is a 43-year-old mother of three young children. In February 1999 she allowed her brother to stay with her. He was on home detention. The relationship deteriorated between them. On Sunday 24 February 1999 he fell into a rage. He was on heroin. He started smashing up the house, he threatened the…

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 Slater v Whitehead

Details

AGLC: Slater v Whitehead [1999] WASCA 69
Case: [1999] WASCA 69
Decision Date: 21 JUNE 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Slater was the appellant and Whitehead the respondent in this case, which was heard by the Court of Appeal. The dispute centred on a challenge by the appellant to the severity of his sentence, which had been imposed by the Magistrates' Court following Slater's conviction for driving while his licence was suspended and under the influence of alcohol. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The respondent was represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who submitted that the appeal should be dismissed.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court was manifestly excessive. This involved a consideration of the relevant sentencing principles and the facts of the case. The Court noted that the Magistrates' Court had considered all relevant factors, including Slater's previous convictions and the seriousness of the current offence. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the Magistrates' Court had exercised its discretion properly in imposing the sentence. The Court noted that each case turns on its own facts and that there are no new principles involved in this appeal. The Court found that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offences committed. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal should be dismissed because the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court stood.

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.