Snowball v McDonald - [2019] WASC 108

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   SNOWBALL -v- MCDONALD [2019] WASC 108
CORAM:   ARCHER J
HEARD:   26 FEBRUARY 2019
DELIVERED          :   5 APRIL 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1098 of 2018
BETWEEN:   ARNOLD JAMES SNOWBALL
Appellant
AND
SCOTT WILLIAM MCDONALD
First Respondent
TIMOTHY MASSEY
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE J SCUTT
File Number             :   CA 484 of 2019, CA 769 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Manifestly excessive - Limited means - Forfeiture of personal undertaking

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 9, s 14
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39, s 53

Result:

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	K J Farley SC
First Respondent	:	R N Paljetak
Second Respondent	:	R N Paljetak

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid (WA)
First Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Second Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Al Hussein v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2014] WASC 296
C E Oates & Sons Pty Ltd (t/as Narrogin Retravision) v Balla [2015] WASC 144
Gaskell v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 8
Hussaini v Szolnoski [2013] WASC 64; (2013) 227 A Crim R 586
Ninyette v Holmes [2015] WASC 287
Pavlitsas v Rowe [2013] WASC 233
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193 (2005) 30 WAR 473
Sgroi v R (1989) 40 A Crim R 197
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82

ARCHER J:

Introduction

On 3 July 2018, the appellant Mr Snowball was sentenced by her Honour Magistrate Scutt in relation to two offences. The magistrate fined Mr Snowball $1,200 for disobeying a witness summons and $400 for failing to appear as required by his bail undertaking. Mr Snowball was further ordered to forfeit the amount of his personal undertaking of $3,000 as a consequence of breaching his bail.
Mr Snowball seeks leave to appeal against the fines.
The application for leave to appeal was ordered to be heard at the same time as the appeal.

Ground of appeal

The single ground of appeal is that the fines were manifestly excessive.

The facts

On 20 September 2017, Mr Snowball witnessed the start of an incident at an address in Carnarvon.[1] He reported the incident to the police and provided a written statement as to what…

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 Snowball v McDonald

Details

AGLC: Snowball v McDonald [2019] WASC 108
Case: [2019] WASC 108
Decision Date: 5 APRIL 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard an appeal from the appellant, Snowball, against the sentence imposed by the District Court. Snowball was convicted of armed robbery, and the sentence imposed was imprisonment for a term of 12 years. The primary ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering Snowball's limited means and the fact that he had a personal undertaking to pay a sum of money to a victim. The respondent, McDonald, argued that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the forfeiture of the personal undertaking was appropriate. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his limited means and the fact that he had a personal undertaking to pay a sum of money to a victim. The court noted that the appellant had a previous criminal history and that the offence was particularly serious due to the use of a weapon.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, considering the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court noted that the appellant had a previous criminal history and that the offence was particularly serious due to the use of a weapon. The court also found that the forfeiture of the personal undertaking was appropriate, given the appellant's inability to pay the sum of money to the victim. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the District Court. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the forfeiture of the personal undertaking was appropriate. The court noted that the appellant had a previous criminal history and that the offence was particularly serious due to the use of a weapon. The court also noted that the appellant's limited means were a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders