Legal Research
Cases
Stokes v Auckland

Stokes v Auckland

Case [2012] WASC 2 10 January 2012

Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: STOKES -v- AUCKLAND [2012] WASC 2

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 21 DECEMBER 2011

DELIVERED : 10 JANUARY 2012

FILE NO/S: SJA 1081 of 2011

BETWEEN: CRAIG BRADLEY STOKES
Appellant
AND
CAMERON PHILLIP AUCKLAND
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE ZEMPILAS
File No  :KA 1558 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm - Plea of guilty - Must demonstrate miscarriage of justice - No support for suggestion that guilty plea not made voluntarily or that facts were disputed

Appeal against sentence - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Whether total effective sentence disproportionate to overall criminality - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972 (WA), s 48
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8(2)
Criminal Code (WA), s 317(1)(a)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 80(3)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms C A Fletcher

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254
Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Hogue v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 102
Holden v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 50
Leeder v Moss [2011] WASC 196
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
McDougall v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 232
Morgan v Kazandzis [2010] WASC 377; (2010) 206 A Crim R 235
Mourish v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 257
Paskov v Hull [2008] WASC 163
Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319
The State of Western Australia v Cheeseman [2011] WASCA 15
Ward v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 172
Wiltshire v Mafi [2010] WASCA 111

HALL J:

Introduction

On 21 April 2011 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court to one count of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm (charge number KA 11/1558). The offence was committed against his de facto partner, Kylie Lee Garlett, on 12 April 2011.
The offence was committed whilst the appellant was subject to three suspended imprisonment orders. The suspended sentences were imposed on 3 November 2010 following pleas of guilty to other offences involving the same victim. The suspended sentences were imposed after the appellant had successfully completed a 9‑month pre‑sentence order in relation to each offence. The sentences imposed on 3 November 2010 were as follows:

KA 09/6600	Committed on 27 November 2009 - aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm	6 months and 1 day' imprisonment suspended for 6 months
KA 09/7205	Committed 31 December 2009 - aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm	6 months and 1 day' imprisonment suspended for 6 months
KA 09/7204	Committed 31 December 2009 - breach of bail by breaching a protective bail condition

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 Stokes v Auckland

Details

AGLC: Stokes v Auckland [2012] WASC 2
Case: [2012] WASC 2
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stokes v Auckland was an appeal against conviction and sentence brought before the court by the appellant. The appeal was based on a conviction for aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm, for which the appellant had entered a plea of guilty. The appeal against the sentence argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the overall criminality of the offence. The respondent argued that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed as there was no suggestion that the guilty plea was not made voluntarily or that the facts were disputed. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed as the sentence was not disproportionate to the overall criminality of the offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appeal against conviction should be allowed and whether the appeal against sentence should be upheld. The court considered whether there was any suggestion that the guilty plea was not made voluntarily or that the facts were disputed. The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the total effective sentence was disproportionate to the overall criminality of the offence. The court had to consider the facts of the case to determine whether the sentence was appropriate.

The court found that there was no support for the suggestion that the guilty plea was not made voluntarily or that the facts were disputed. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the total effective sentence was not disproportionate to the overall criminality of the offence. The court found that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Orders