Smejlis v Matthews

Case [2004] WASCA 158

SMEJLIS -v- MATTHEWS [2004] WASCA 158



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2004] WASCA 158
Case No:SJA:1024/20041 JULY 2004
Coram:JENKINS J29/07/04
33Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal against conviction dismissed, Appeal against sentence allowed in part
B
PDF Version
Parties:SIMON TIMOTHY SMEJLIS
PAUL VALANCE MATTHEWS

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Appeal from decision of Magistrate
Conviction and sentence
Assault occasioning bodily harm
Inferences available from evidence
Meaning of "procure"
Definition of "bodily harm"
Immediate sentence of imprisonment for youthful first offender

Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 7(d), s 8, s 317(1)
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199(1)(b)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 6(4), s 20(1), s 21, s 88(1)

Case References:
Attorney General's Reference [1975] 1 QB 773
Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1983) 153 CLR 521
Cramer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980620; 28 October 1998
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Haysdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435
Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454
Pettit v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
R v Castiglione [1963] NSWR 1
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434
Scatchard v The Queen (1987) 27 A Crim R 136
Smith v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 527
Carlson v The King (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 65
Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32
Harvey v Matthews [1999] WASCA 58
Lam v Beesley (1992) 7 WAR 88
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
CITATION : SMEJLIS -v- MATTHEWS [2004] WASCA 158 CORAM : JENKINS J HEARD : 1 JULY 2004 DELIVERED : 29 JULY 2004 FILE NO/S : SJA 1024 of 2004 MATTER : Justices Act 1902 BETWEEN : SIMON TIMOTHY SMEJLIS
    Appellant

    AND

    PAUL VALANCE MATTHEWS
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MR NICHOLLS SM

File Number : JO 4885, JO 4886, JO 4887 & JO 4888 of 2003



Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal from decision of Magistrate - Conviction and sentence - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Inferences available from evidence - Meaning of "procure" - Definition of "bodily harm" - Immediate sentence of imprisonment for youthful first offender



(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 7(d), s 8, s 317(1)


Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199(1)(b)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 6(4), s 20(1), s 21, s 88(1)


Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed


Appeal against sentence allowed in part


Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr R G W Bayly
    Respondent : Mr C Williams


Solicitors:

    Appellant : Bayly & O'Brien
    Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions



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

Attorney General's Reference [1975] 1 QB 773
Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1983)…

Continue reading Smejlis v Matthews

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Smejlis v Matthews [2004] WASCA 158
Case
[2004] WASCA 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal from a conviction and sentence issued by a magistrate. The appellant, Smejlis, was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm against the respondent, Matthews. The appellant contested the conviction and the sentence imposed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, which reviewed the magistrate's decision. The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence supported the conviction, the interpretation of certain terms used in the charge, and the appropriateness of the sentence given.

The court examined the evidence presented to determine if it was sufficient to support the conviction. Specifically, the court considered the meaning of the term "procure" within the context of the assault charge and whether the bodily harm alleged was adequately defined and proven. The court also evaluated the sentence imposed on the appellant, who was a youthful first offender, and whether the immediate imprisonment term was appropriate. The court's analysis involved a detailed review of the evidence, the legal definitions, and sentencing principles relevant to the case.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, affirming that the term "procure" as used in the charge was correctly interpreted and that the bodily harm alleged was adequately defined and proven. However, the court determined that the sentence imposed was too severe given the appellant's age and the fact that it was his first offence. The court allowed the appeal against the sentence in part, reducing the term of imprisonment to a community-based order more suitable for a youthful first offender.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction but to allow the appeal against the sentence in part. The conviction remained intact, but the original sentence was varied to a community-based order. This decision balanced the need for accountability and deterrence with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed, Appeal against sentence allowed in part

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.