WAYMOUTH -v- CHRISP & ORS [2000] WASCA 89

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 89
Case No:	SJA:1234/2000	Heard:	3 APRIL 2000
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	10/04/00
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Order that appellant be eligible for parole
PDF Version

Parties:	DAVID WAYMOUTH DEAN JOHN CHRISP MICHAEL CLIFFORD JOHN HENDERSON GARY JAMES THOMAS DONALDSON ROBERT PATRICK PAPROCKI WAYNE MATTHEWS
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Eligibility for parole Whether Magistrate erred in refusing parole Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Offenders Community Corrections Act 1963 Sentencing Act 1995, s 87, s 89(2)
Case References:	Forbes v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7777; 7 August 1989 Stuart v Waghorne [1999] WASCA 150 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Archibald v R (1989) 40 A Crim R 228 Jarvis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930341; 14 June 1993 Marshall v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970536; 2 October 1997 Ratcliff v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980651; 3 November 1998 Swain v R (1989) 41 A Crim R 214 The Queen v Jones, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970210; 30 April 1997 Young v Dockery, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990144; 22 March 1999

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : WAYMOUTH -v- CHRISP & ORS [2000] WASCA 89 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 3 APRIL 2000 DELIVERED : 10 APRIL 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1234 of 2000 BETWEEN : DAVID WAYMOUTH

Appellant

AND

DEAN JOHN CHRISP

MICHAEL CLIFFORD JOHN HENDERSON

GARY JAMES THOMAS DONALDSON

ROBERT PATRICK PAPROCKI

WAYNE MATTHEWS

Respondents

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Eligibility for parole - Whether Magistrate erred in refusing parole - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Offenders Community Corrections Act 1963

Sentencing Act 1995, s 87, s 89(2)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Order that appellant be eligible for parole

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R D Young

Respondents : Ms L B Black

Solicitors:

Appellant : Gunning

Respondents : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Forbes v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7777; 7 August 1989
Stuart v Waghorne [1999] WASCA 150
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

Case(s) also cited:

Archibald v R (1989) 40 A Crim R 228
Jarvis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930341; 14 June 1993
Marshall v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970536; 2 October 1997
Ratcliff v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980651; 3 November 1998
Swain v R (1989) 41 A Crim R 214
The Queen v Jones, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970210; 30 April 1997
Young v Dockery, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990144; 22 March 1999

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: The appellant was charged in the Perth Court of Petty…

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 Waymouth v Chrisp

Details

AGLC: Waymouth v Chrisp [2000] WASCA 89
Case: [2000] WASCA 89
Decision Date: 10 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waymouth v Chrisp involved the appellant, Waymouth, who appealed against a decision made by a Magistrate refusing him eligibility for parole. The nature of the dispute was whether the Magistrate erred in his decision to refuse parole. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether the Magistrate had correctly exercised his discretion in denying the appellant's eligibility for parole and whether the Magistrate had taken into account all relevant factors in making his decision. The Court of Appeal had to consider the principles of sentencing and parole eligibility, and whether the Magistrate's decision was open to challenge on the grounds of error of law or failure to take into account relevant factors.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate had erred in his decision to refuse parole. The Court held that the Magistrate had failed to take into account relevant factors in making his decision, including the appellant's age, his prospects for rehabilitation, and his behaviour while in custody. The Court also found that the Magistrate had not correctly applied the principles of sentencing and parole eligibility. As a result, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be eligible for parole.

This decision highlights the importance of the correct application of sentencing principles and the need for Magistrates to take into account all relevant factors when making decisions about parole eligibility. It also demonstrates the Court of Appeal's willingness to intervene in cases where Magistrates have erred in their decision-making processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Order that appellant be eligible for parole

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.