Strahan v Brennan

Case [2014] WASC 190


STRAHAN -v- BRENNAN [2014] WASC 190



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WASC 190
28/05/2014
Case No:SJA:1007/20141 MAY 2014
Coram:MARTIN CJ1/05/14
27Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:AARON GRANT STRAHAN
JAMIE BRUCE BRENNAN
TROY GREGORY TOMLIN

Catchwords:

Criminal law
Appeal against conviction and sentence
Assaults by police officers
Use of taser
Whether magistrate's reasons were sufficient
Self­defence
Defence under s 16 of Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA)
Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 14(2)
Criminal Code (WA), s 222, s 248
Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 16, s 70, s 135
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31

Case References:

Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASCA 131
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Francis v Todd [2011] WASC 185
Johnson v Ayling [2013] WASC 312
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
M v O'Neill [2013] WASC 187
R v Jacob (Unreported, WASC, Library No 2362, 22 June 1978)
Tran v Claydon [2003] WASCA 318; (2003) 40 MVR 506
Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17
Waters v Page [2011] WASC 31


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CRIMINAL
CITATION : STRAHAN -v- BRENNAN [2014] WASC 190 CORAM : MARTIN CJ HEARD : 1 MAY 2014 DELIVERED : 1 MAY 2014 PUBLISHED : 28 MAY 2014 FILE NO/S : SJA 1007 of 2014 BETWEEN : AARON GRANT STRAHAN
    Appellant

    AND

    JAMIE BRUCE BRENNAN
    Respondent
FILE NO/S : SJA 1008 of 2014 BETWEEN : TROY GREGORY TOMLIN
    Appellant

    AND

    JAMIE BRUCE BRENNAN
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE BROMFIELD

File No : PE 19206-19209 of 2013, PE 19201-19212 of 2013


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Assaults by police officers - Use of taser - Whether magistrate's reasons were sufficient - Self­defence - Defence under s 16 of Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) - Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 14(2)


Criminal Code (WA), s 222, s 248
Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 16, s 70, s 135
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31

Result:

Appeal dismissed


Category: A


Representation:

SJA 1007 of 2014

Counsel:


    Appellant : Ms K A Vernon
    Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Darren Jones Barrister and Solicitor
    Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

SJA 1008 of 2014

Counsel:


    Appellant : Ms K A Vernon
    Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Darren Jones Barrister and Solicitor
    Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)


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

Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASCA 131
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Francis v Todd [2011] WASC 185
Johnson v Ayling [2013] WASC 312

Continue reading Strahan v Brennan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
Case
[2014] WASC 190
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Strahan v Brennan is an appeal against the conviction and sentence for assault by police officers, involving the use of a taser. The dispute was heard in the District Court of Western Australia. The appellant, Strahan, was convicted of assaulting police officers during an incident in which a taser was used. Strahan's appeal challenges both the sufficiency of the magistrate's reasons for the conviction and the severity of the sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate's reasons for the conviction were sufficient, and whether the defence of self-defence or the statutory defence under section 16 of the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) were available to Strahan. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the magistrate's reasons for the conviction were adequate, as they addressed the elements of the offence and the evidence presented. The court also concluded that the statutory defence under section 16 was not applicable, as Strahan's actions did not meet the criteria for reasonable force in response to an arrest. Regarding self-defence, the court found that Strahan's actions were not justified as he was not under imminent threat of unlawful violence. The court further held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.