STYLE -v- RUDRUM [2012] WASC 385

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 385
Published:	15/10/2012
Case No:	SJA:1103/2012	Heard:	11 OCTOBER 2012
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	11/10/12
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Appellant resentenced to 6 months community based order with 10 hours community service and supervision requirement
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL AARON STYLE LEE DOUGLAS RUDRUM
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for offence of driving whilst disqualified Whether sentence manifestly excessive Appeal conceded Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Gable v Nardini [2010] WASC 321 McDougall v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 232 Mears v Holleman [2010] WASC 39 Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319 Sheiner v Roberts [2009] WASC 281

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : STYLE -v- RUDRUM [2012] WASC 385 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 11 OCTOBER 2012 DELIVERED : 11 OCTOBER 2012 PUBLISHED : 15 OCTOBER 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1103 of 2012 BETWEEN : MICHAEL AARON STYLE

Appellant

AND

LEE DOUGLAS RUDRUM

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE V C EDWARDS

File No : PE 27163 of 2012, PE 27164 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for offence of driving whilst disqualified - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Appeal conceded - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Appellant resentenced to 6 months community based order with 10 hours community service and supervision requirement

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms K A Gorski

Respondent : Ms A E Johnson

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Gable v Nardini [2010] WASC 321
McDougall v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 232
Mears v Holleman [2010] WASC 39
Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139; (2009) 197 A Crim R 319
Sheiner v Roberts [2009] WASC 281

(Page 3)

1 HALL J: On 13 July 2012 the appellant appeared in the Magistrates Court at Mandurah and pleaded guilty to driving an unlicensed vehicle, contrary to s 15(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) and driving whilst his authority to drive was suspended, contrary to s 49(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act. He was fined in respect of the first charge and sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment on the second charge. An order that he be disqualified from holding a driver's licence for 15 months cumulative was also made on the second charge.

2 The appellant…

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 Style v Rudrum

Details

AGLC: STYLE -v- RUDRUM [2012] WASC 385
Case: [2012] WASC 385
Decision Date: 15 OCTOBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Style, appealed against the sentence of nine months' imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates' Court for the offence of driving while disqualified. The nature of the dispute was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, which would warrant a reduction. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court was manifestly excessive and warranted reconsideration.

The court examined the principles governing the assessment of the severity of a sentence and the circumstances of the case. The court found that the nature of the offence, being driving while disqualified, was serious and warranted a custodial sentence. However, the court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances and background, including his good character and previous non-indictable driving convictions. The court further considered the sentencing principles of proportionality and deterrence and whether the original sentence achieved these objectives. The court held that while the original sentence was within the available range, it was nonetheless manifestly excessive given the appellant's background and the potential for a community-based order to achieve the objectives of sentencing.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced to a six-month community-based order with 10 hours of community service and a supervision requirement. The court considered this sentence to be more appropriate given the appellant's personal circumstances and the objectives of sentencing. The court noted that the new sentence would provide an opportunity for the appellant to address the underlying issues that led to the offence and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The court further noted that the new sentence would also provide an opportunity for the appellant to make a positive contribution to the community through community service.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Appellant resentenced to 6 months community based order with 10 hours community service and supervision requirement

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.