SPRATT -v- CANAVAN [2006] WASC 223

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 223
Case No:	SJA:1050/2006	Heard:	14 SEPTEMBER 2006
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	14/09/06
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Both appeals allowed Fines substituted
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	LENA ROSE SPRATT THOMAS JOSEPH CANAVAN RHONA YVONNE EDWARDS SIMON PAUL CLAYSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentence of imprisonment suspended Breach of bail Whether imprisonment appropriate
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 51(1) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 7(2)(c)
Case References:	Dodd v Hoogewerf [2002] WASCA 15 Eades v Dunstan, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 950663; 30 November 1995 Heaton v Moulden [2004] WASCA 29 Indich v Bracknell [2005] WASC 225 Kelly v Lockwood [2005] WASC 18 Quartermaine v The Queen [2000] WASCA 107 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : SPRATT -v- CANAVAN [2006] WASC 223 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 14 SEPTEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 14 SEPTEMBER 2006 FILE NO/S : SJA 1050 of 2006 BETWEEN : LENA ROSE SPRATT

Appellant

AND

THOMAS JOSEPH CANAVAN

Respondent

FILE NO/S : SJA 1052 of 2006 BETWEEN : RHONA YVONNE EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

SIMON PAUL CLAYSON

Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No : SJA 1050 of 2006

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE B LANE

File No : PE 16366 of 2006

Result : Appeal allowed - Fine $500 substituted

For File No : SJA 1052 of 2006

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE B LANE

File No : PE 25335 of 2006

Result : Appeal allowed - Fine $200 substituted

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentence of imprisonment suspended - Breach of bail - Whether imprisonment appropriate

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 51(1)

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 7(2)(c)

Result:

Both appeals allowed

Fines substituted

(Page 3)

Category: D

Representation:

SJA 1050 of 2006

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Mr A Shuy

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Solicitor

SJA 1052 of 2006

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Mr A Shuy

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Solicitor

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

Dodd v Hoogewerf [2002] WASCA 15
Eades v Dunstan, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 950663; 30 November 1995
Heaton v Moulden [2004] WASCA 29
Indich v Bracknell [2005] WASC 225
Kelly v Lockwood [2005] WASC 18
Quartermaine v The Queen [2000] WASCA 107

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 4)

1 McKECHNIE J: This appeal was argued at the same time as the appeal in SJA 1052 of 2006, Edwards v Clayson. In Indich v Bracknell [2005] WASC 225, I set out the principles in cases of sentencing for breach of bail both generally and in particular to sentences for imprisonment of 6 months…

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 Spratt v Canavan

Details

AGLC: Spratt v Canavan [2006] WASC 223
Case: [2006] WASC 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia heard two appeals, one by Lena Rose Spratt against Thomas Joseph Canavan and another by Rhona Yvonne Edwards against Simon Paul Clayson. Both appellants contested the Magistrates' Court's imposition of suspended imprisonment sentences for breaching bail conditions. The legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrates' Court correctly applied the sentencing principles for breach of bail and whether the imposed sentences were appropriate. The court had to determine whether the Magistrates' Court erred in sentencing and whether the sentences were proportionate to the offence.

Justice McKechnie found that the Magistrates' Court did err in sentencing. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences for which the appellants failed to appear and found that the offences were not of such gravity as to warrant imprisonment. The court noted that previous sentences had not deterred the appellants from reoffending, but this alone did not aggravate the offence. The court concluded that the Magistrates' Court should have imposed fines instead of suspended imprisonment, as the offences did not require such a severe penalty. The court set aside the Magistrates' Court's sentences and imposed fines of $500 for Spratt and $200 for Edwards instead.

The final orders of the court were to allow both appeals, set aside the Magistrates' Court's decisions to impose suspended imprisonment sentences, and substitute fines of $500 for Spratt and $200 for Edwards.

Orders