Legal Research
Cases
Ugle v Wells

Ugle v Wells

Case [1999] WASCA 21 18 May 1999

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: UGLE -v- WELLS [1999] WASCA 21

CORAM: WHITE J

HEARD: 14 MAY 1999

DELIVERED : 18 MAY 1999

FILE NO/S: SJA 1034 of 1999

BETWEEN: PERRY UGLE
Appellant
AND
ROBERTA LYNN WELLS
Respondent

FILE NO/S :SJA 1035 of 1999

BETWEEN :DOUGLAS YARRAN
Appellant
AND
ROBERTA LYNN WELLS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Appellants assaulting two complainants contemporaneously - Whether sentences should have been directed to be served concurrently - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995

Result:
Appeal by appellant Ugle allowed in part
Appeals otherwise dismissed

Representation:

SJA 1034 of 1999

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr P Dixon
Respondent: Ms K A Sellars

Solicitors:

Appellant: Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

SJA 1035 of 1999

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr P Dixon
Respondent: Ms K A Sellars

Solicitors:

Appellant: Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Esteban v Wolpers, unreported; SCt of WA; 16 November 1988 (per Nicholson J)
R v Houston (1982) 8 A Crim R 392
Ruane v R (1979) 1 A Crim R 284
The Queen v Legg, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980305; 9 April 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 612
Brown v Lynch (1982) 5 A Crim R 404
House v The King (1963) 55 CLR 499
Jarvis v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA, Lib No 930341; 14 June 1993
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
R v Stebbings (1990) 4 WAR 538
Smedley v R, unreported; CCA Sct of WA; Library No 990146, 23 March 1999
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Weng Keong Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

WHITE J: The appellants in this consolidated appeal were convicted on 18 November 1998 in the Court of Petty Sessions (Mr K Fisher SM) upon their own pleas of guilty of certain offences. These arose from the fact that, on 2 May 1998 they had together pursued the complainant, Mrs Joy Bridgette Ugle through a street into a service station. The service station was operated by the complainant Ms Deidre Michelle Wickham. The appellants were armed with a wooden stick and a metal bar or pipe, respectively. In the service station, the appellants both assaulted the two complainants, beating them with their weapons. Ms Wickham's husband intervened on her behalf and was also assaulted.
It appears that the incident arose as the result of a long-standing feud or quarrel between the complainant, Mrs Ugle and the appellant Ugle. The complainant, Ms Wickham, had no involvement in that quarrel and the assault upon her appears to have been effected simply because she was in the way - the complainant, Mrs Ugle had taken refuge behind her when pursued into the service station.
The appellant Ugle was convicted of one charge of breaching a…

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 Ugle v Wells

Details

AGLC: Ugle v Wells [1999] WASCA 21
Case: [1999] WASCA 21
Decision Date: 18 MAY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ugle v Wells involved two appellants, Ugle and another individual, who were convicted of assaulting two separate complainants simultaneously. The appellants sought to challenge their sentences, arguing that the sentences should have been directed to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellants' sentences should have been imposed concurrently, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.

The court was tasked with examining the principles of sentencing in cases where multiple offenders are involved in separate but contemporaneous assaults. The appellants contended that their actions, although directed at different victims, were part of a single course of conduct and should therefore be treated as a single offence for the purpose of sentencing. They argued that this approach would be more consistent with the principles of justice and proportionality. The court needed to determine if the trial judge had correctly exercised discretion in imposing consecutive sentences and whether the appellants' argument had merit.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the precedent set by previous cases that dealt with similar issues. The court found that while the appellants' actions were part of a single course of conduct, they involved distinct and separate assaults on different victims. The court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing consecutive sentences, as each assault constituted a separate and significant breach of the peace. The court concluded that the appellants' argument for concurrent sentencing was not supported by the facts of the case. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original sentencing order was upheld.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the appellants' sentences would remain as imposed by the trial judge, with the sentences to be served consecutively. The court emphasised that the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation justified the imposition of consecutive sentences. The appellants were not granted any relief from their sentences, and the decision of the trial judge was affirmed.

Orders