THOMSON -v- BROCK [2013] WASC 289

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 289
Published:	05/08/2013
Case No:	SJA:1046/2013	Heard:	12 JULY 2013
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	12/07/13
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DANIEL THOMSON JAMES ALEXANDER BROCK
Catchwords:	Criminal law Driving under suspension 19th offence Breach of suspended sentences Whether total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment disproportionate
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Abfahr v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 87 Anderson v Stilwell [2006] WASC 257 Arcari v Christie [2007] WASC 298 Bell v Wesley [2007] WASC 264 Findlay v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 61 Gable v Nardini [2010] WASC 321 Hubbard v Fisher [2001] WASCA 182 Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316 Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 Sheiner v Roberts [2009] WASC 281 Sheppard v Blakey [2001] WASCA 309 Swain (1989) 41 A Crim R 214

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : THOMSON -v- BROCK [2013] WASC 289 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 12 JULY 2013 DELIVERED : 12 JULY 2013 PUBLISHED : 5 AUGUST 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1046 of 2013 BETWEEN : DANIEL THOMSON

Appellant

AND

JAMES ALEXANDER BROCK

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE G A BENN

File No : MI 5973 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Driving under suspension - 19th offence - Breach of suspended sentences - Whether total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment disproportionate

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms M Georgiou

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Abfahr v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 87
Anderson v Stilwell [2006] WASC 257
Arcari v Christie [2007] WASC 298
Bell v Wesley [2007] WASC 264
Findlay v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 61
Gable v Nardini [2010] WASC 321
Hubbard v Fisher [2001] WASCA 182
Patterson v Cutler [2010] WASC 316
Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343
Sheiner v Roberts [2009] WASC 281
Sheppard v Blakey [2001] WASCA 309
Swain (1989) 41 A Crim R 214

HALL J

Introduction

1 This is an appeal against a total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed on the appellant in the Midland Magistrates Court on 22 March 2013. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal I refused leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal and gave brief reasons. I said that more detailed reasons would be published at a later date.

2 The sentence imposed on the appellant comprised several components, a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment was imposed for an offence of driving while suspended, contrary to s 49(1)(a) and s 49(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). That offence triggered three suspended imprisonment orders for similar offences…

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 Thomson v Brock

Details

AGLC: THOMSON -v- BROCK [2013] WASC 289
Case: [2013] WASC 289
Decision Date: 5 AUGUST 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thomson v Brock, the appellant, Mr. Thomson, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for driving while his licence was suspended, his 19th such offence. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal in Victoria, where the appellant contended that the total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, imposed due to the accumulation of suspended sentences, was disproportionate and should be quashed. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was an appropriate response to the appellant's repeated and egregious breaches of the law.

The court was tasked with determining whether the total effective sentence was so severe as to be disproportionate under the circumstances. The appellant argued that the cumulative nature of the suspended sentences, combined with the additional imprisonment term, amounted to a manifestly excessive penalty that did not serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, or rehabilitation. In examining the appellant's submission, the court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, alongside the specific facts of the case and the appellant's history of repeated offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was not disproportionate. The court held that the appellant's repeated and deliberate breaches of the law, amounting to 19 separate instances of driving under suspension, justified a severe sentence. The court also noted that the sentence was within the range of penalties typically imposed for such serious and persistent breaches. The court concluded that the sentence served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation by reflecting the gravity of the appellant's conduct and its impact on the community. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.