STRATTON -v- ALLEN [2002] WASCA 43
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 43 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1128/2001 | 25 FEBRUARY 2002 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J | 8/03/02 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against convictions dismissedAppeal against sentences allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | VANCE RONALD STRATTON JAI ALLEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against conviction Review of fact finding process adopted by Magistrate Whether correct application of onus of proof Role of particulars Whether police officer acting in course of duty Whether Magistrate failed to consider questions of accident and selfdefence Sentence Aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment to be immediately served with eligibility for parole for refusal to give address, resisting arrest and four offences of assaulting police officers while performing a function of their office, manifestly excessive One course of serious offending on the one occasion Offender of otherwise good character Whether cumulative service of sentences proper in circumstances |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Carew v Carone (1991) 5 WAR 1 State Rail Authority of NSW v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (1999) 73 ALJR 306 Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321 Esteban v Wolpers, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7376; 16 November 1988 Etrelezis v R [2001] WASCA 327 Farmer v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940075; 16 February 1994 Hodges v Hagen [2001] WASCA 41 Hookway v Evans, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7138; 20 May 1988 James v R (1985) 14 A Crim R 364 Langridge v R (1996) 17 WAR 346; 87 A Crim R 1 Latham v R [2000] WASCA 338 Milstead v Cream, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8648; 19 December 1990 Monahan v Ostrowski [2001] WASCA 331 Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Clifton, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8142; 15 March 1990 R v Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381 Ruane v R (1979) 1 A Crim R 284 Smith v R (1992) 7 WAR 527 Thomson v R (1998) 105 A Crim R 150 Trobridge v Hardy (1956) 94 CLR 147 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395 Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365 Yarran v Czerkasow [1982] WAR 239 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
JAI ALLEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction - Review of fact finding process adopted by Magistrate - Whether correct application of onus of proof - Role of particulars - Whether police officer acting in course of duty - Whether Magistrate failed to consider questions of accident and selfdefence
Sentence - Aggregate term of 3 years imprisonment to be immediately served with eligibility for parole for refusal to give address, resisting arrest and four offences of assaulting police officers while…
Continue reading Stratton v Allen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stratton v Allen [2002] WASCA 43
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 43
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the court involved a conviction and sentence handed down by a Magistrate. The appellant, Stratton, was convicted of multiple charges including refusal to give an address, resisting arrest, and assaulting police officers while they were performing their duties. The case was brought before the court on the basis that the Magistrate had erred in applying the onus of proof, in considering particulars, and in evaluating the circumstances surrounding the incident, including questions of accident and self-defence. Additionally, the appellant contested the severity of the sentence imposed, arguing that the aggregate term of three years imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
The central legal issues in the case revolved around the proper application of the onus of proof and the role of particulars in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the Magistrate had correctly considered the circumstances of the incident, including the possibility of accident or self-defence. The appeal also questioned the appropriateness of the sentence, considering the nature of the offences as a single course of serious offending on one occasion, the appellant's otherwise good character, and whether cumulative service of sentences was proper in these circumstances.
The court found that the Magistrate had correctly applied the onus of proof and appropriately considered the role of particulars. However, the court identified errors in the Magistrate's evaluation of the incident, specifically regarding the failure to adequately consider the questions of accident and self-defence. In relation to the sentence, the court held that the aggregate term of three years imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the nature of the offences as a single course of serious offending but noted the appellant's otherwise good character. Consequently, the court deemed the cumulative service of sentences improper.
The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, while the appeal against the sentences was allowed. The court ordered that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate be reconsidered, with the possibility of a reduced term of imprisonment or alternative penalties.
The central legal issues in the case revolved around the proper application of the onus of proof and the role of particulars in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the Magistrate had correctly considered the circumstances of the incident, including the possibility of accident or self-defence. The appeal also questioned the appropriateness of the sentence, considering the nature of the offences as a single course of serious offending on one occasion, the appellant's otherwise good character, and whether cumulative service of sentences was proper in these circumstances.
The court found that the Magistrate had correctly applied the onus of proof and appropriately considered the role of particulars. However, the court identified errors in the Magistrate's evaluation of the incident, specifically regarding the failure to adequately consider the questions of accident and self-defence. In relation to the sentence, the court held that the aggregate term of three years imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the nature of the offences as a single course of serious offending but noted the appellant's otherwise good character. Consequently, the court deemed the cumulative service of sentences improper.
The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, while the appeal against the sentences was allowed. The court ordered that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate be reconsidered, with the possibility of a reduced term of imprisonment or alternative penalties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against convictions dismissedAppeal against sentences 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.