WALLAM -v- GROSVELD [2015] WASC 145
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 145 | |
| 24/04/2015 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1016/2015 | 11 MARCH 2015 | |
| Coram: | KENNETH MARTIN J | 11/03/15 | |
| 26 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted on all grounds Appeal allowed on grounds 2 and 3 Sentence set aside and appellant resentenced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
PAUL MARK GROSVELD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE T R WATT
File No : PE 114776 of 2014
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Breach of restraining order - Prior convictions for same offence - Appellant sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment to be served immediately - Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61A - Whether immediate imprisonment the only appropriate sentencing option - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61, s 61A
Result:
Leave to appeal granted on all grounds
Appeal allowed on grounds 2 and 3
Sentence set aside and appellant resentenced
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D D Brunello
Respondent : Mr B D Nelson
Solicitors:
Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
AH v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 228
Almonte v Beswick [2013] WASC 207
Casotti v…
Continue reading Wallam v Grosveld
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wallam v Grosveld [2015] WASC 145
- Case
- [2015] WASC 145
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to consider whether the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence was justified, given the appellant's prior conviction for a similar offence. The arguments focused on the appropriate sentencing principles under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), specifically section 61A, and whether the sentence imposed was proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances. The court also needed to determine whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the appellant's prior convictions and other mitigating factors.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed. The court emphasised that the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence was not the only appropriate option and that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the appellant's prior convictions and other mitigating factors. The appeal was allowed on grounds two and three, with the sentence set aside and the appellant resentenced. Leave to appeal was granted on all grounds.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted on all grounds
Appeal allowed on grounds 2 and 3
Sentence set aside and 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.