SMITH -v- PRITCHARD [2003] WASCA 6

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 6
Case No:	SJA:1061/2002	Heard:	16 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	29/01/03
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RODNEY ALEXANDER SMITH GEOFFREY OWEN PRITCHARD
Catchwords:	Road traffic Conviction for driving under the influence Sentence of 15 months' imprisonment Appeal against sentence Need to consider suspended sentence Suspended sentence for 4 months' imprisonment substituted Appeal allowed and appellant discharged from imprisonment
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974 Sentencing Act 1995
Case References:	Baker v Bushell (1988) 7 MVR 142 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Herps v Douglas (1991) 13 MVR 568 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Khan v Yates (1995) 22 MVR 436 Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998 Marshall v Spent [2000] WASCA 114 O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999 Parfitt v Van Aken, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960122; 6 March 1996 Police v Cadd & Ors (1997) 69 SASR 150 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SMITH -v- PRITCHARD [2003] WASCA 6 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 16 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 29 JANUARY 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1061 of 2002 BETWEEN : RODNEY ALEXANDER SMITH

Appellant

AND

GEOFFREY OWEN PRITCHARD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Conviction for driving under the influence - Sentence of 15 months' imprisonment - Appeal against sentence - Need to consider suspended sentence - Suspended sentence for 4 months' imprisonment substituted - Appeal allowed and appellant discharged from imprisonment

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974

Sentencing Act 1995

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms V Amidzic

Respondent : Ms L E Christian

Solicitors:

Appellant : Amidzic & Co

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Baker v Bushell (1988) 7 MVR 142
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Herps v Douglas (1991) 13 MVR 568
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Khan v Yates (1995) 22 MVR 436
Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980595; 14 October 1998
Marshall v Spent [2000] WASCA 114
O'Brien v Ritchie, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990123; 17 March 1999
Parfitt v Van Aken, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960122; 6 March 1996
Police v Cadd & Ors (1997) 69 SASR 150
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 EM HEENAN J: This is an appeal by leave granted by Scott J on 15 May 2002, against a sentence of imprisonment for 15 months with…

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 Smith v Pritchard

Details

AGLC: Smith v Pritchard [2003] WASCA 6
Case: [2003] WASCA 6
Decision Date: 29 JANUARY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Smith v Pritchard involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the appellant, Smith, who was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. The primary issue in this case was whether the sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was appropriate or if a more lenient, suspended sentence should have been considered. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal needed to resolve included the principles governing the imposition of sentences for driving under the influence and the circumstances in which a court might consider a suspended sentence. Specifically, the Court had to evaluate whether the trial judge appropriately exercised discretion in sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. The Court also considered whether a suspended sentence could be a suitable alternative to imprisonment in this case.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was excessive and that the trial judge had failed to consider the possibility of a suspended sentence. The Court noted that while the offence was serious, the appellant had no prior convictions and had shown remorse. Given these factors, the Court concluded that a suspended sentence for four months' imprisonment would be more appropriate. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, discharged the appellant from imprisonment, and substituted a four-month suspended sentence in place of the original imprisonment term. The Court's decision highlights the importance of considering alternative sentencing options in appropriate cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.