SUMPTION -v- GAUNT [2013] WASC 258

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 258
Published:	10/07/2013
Case No:	SJA:1068/2013	Heard:	2 JULY 2013
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	2/07/13
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed in part Sentence on possession charge set aside Appellant resentenced
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TRACY AMBER SUMPTION JAMES CHARLES GAUNT
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply Failure to comply with a data access order
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Coleski v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 260 Haasy v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 207 Lynch v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 243 The State of Western Australia v Reid [2012] WASCA 109 Tran v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 38

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : SUMPTION -v- GAUNT [2013] WASC 258 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 2 JULY 2013 DELIVERED : 2 JULY 2013 PUBLISHED : 10 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1068 of 2013 BETWEEN : TRACY AMBER SUMPTION

Appellant

AND

JAMES CHARLES GAUNT

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE K T FISHER

File No : BU 5630 of 2012, BU 6979 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - Failure to comply with a data access order

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed in part
Sentence on possession charge set aside
Appellant resentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D S Hunter

Respondent : Mrs S Markham

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Coleski v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 260
Haasy v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 207
Lynch v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 243
The State of Western Australia v Reid [2012] WASCA 109
Tran v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 38

(Page 3)

HALL J

Introduction

1 On 2 July 2013 I allowed this appeal against sentence and resentenced the appellant. I indicated at that time that reasons for my decision would be subsequently published.

2 On 26 March 2013 the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, with intent to sell or supply, contrary to s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) and a charge of failing to obey a data access order, contrary to s 61(2) of the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA). On 11 April 2013 she was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment on the charge of possession of methylamphetamine and 4 months' imprisonment concurrent for the failure to comply with the data access order. Accordingly, the total…

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 Sumption v Gaunt

Details

AGLC: SUMPTION -v- GAUNT [2013] WASC 258
Case: [2013] WASC 258
Decision Date: 10 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sumption v Gaunt, the appellant, Sumption, appealed against his sentence for possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply, as well as for failure to comply with a data access order. The appeal was heard by the court which considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate and whether the failure to comply with the data access order warranted a separate sentence. The court was required to balance the seriousness of the offences with the need to deter such criminal conduct and to consider the appellant's personal circumstances, including his prior criminal history and the impact of the sentence on him and his family.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, and whether the failure to comply with the data access order should have been treated as a separate offence warranting a distinct sentence. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for drug offences, the role of deterrence, and the impact of the failure to comply with the data access order on the administration of justice. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the seriousness of the appellant's criminal conduct and whether any error in the sentencing process warranted a reduction in the sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence did not adequately reflect the need for general deterrence, nor did it adequately account for the appellant's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also found that the failure to comply with the data access order should not have been treated as a separate offence warranting a distinct sentence, as it was inherently connected to the possession charge. The court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the sentence on the possession charge, and resentenced the appellant. The sentence on the charge of failure to comply with the data access order was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed in part

Sentence on possession charge set aside

Appellant resentenced

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.