Wilson v The Prothonotary

[2000] NSWCA 23

CITATION:	Wilson v The Prothonotary [2000] NSWCA 23
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40928/99
HEARING DATE(S):	16 February 2000
JUDGMENT DATE:	29 February 2000
PARTIES :	John Wilson (Appellant) The Prothonotary (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 3; Heydon JA at 4

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	CL 12914/97
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Wood CJ at CL

COUNSEL:	Appellant - R Toner SC/J Berwick Respondent - T Buddin SC
SOLICITORS:	Appellant - P J Weldon & Co Respondent - I V Knight
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL - contempt of court - throwing paint at judge - appeal against two year term of imprisonment - failure to call any subjective evidence in relation to sentencing at trial - admission of fresh evidence on appeal - medical condition - hardship to family - obsessive compulsive personality disorder - time already served sufficient punishment - D
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Act 1970
CASES CITED:	R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Vachalec [1981] 2 NSWLR 351 Attorney-General for New south Wales v Whiley (1993) 31 NSWLR 314 Rich v Attorney-General for Victoria [1999] VSCA 14 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade (1991) 178 CLR 134 Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155
DECISION:	See paragraph 53

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40928/99
CL 12914/97

MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA
HEYDON JA
29 February 2000

JOHN WILSON v THE PROTHONOTARY
JUDGMENT

1    MEAGHER JA: I have read in draft the judgment of Heydon JA. I disagree with it.

The relevant facts are as follows:
1. Mr Wilson threw a bag of paint at a judge.
2. On that fact alone he had committed a serious contempt of court, a contempt in the face of the Court.
3. The learned Chief Judge at Common Law sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. That is the decision now appealed from.
4. At the hearing before the Chief Judge, Mr Wilson led virtually no evidence, although invited to do so several times by His Honour.
5. On appeal from His Honour, there was an application to lead further evidence, said to be of a “subjective” nature. This was acceded to by the court, although in my opinion wrongly so.
6. Neither before His Honour, nor on appeal, was there any apology, or any sign of contrition. It was made clear to the Court that this was not due to any inadvertence, but was a calculated decision. In my view this is a fact which on its own should preclude any alteration to his Honour’s sentence.
7. There was nothing novel about the additional evidence led before this court. It could have been led before His Honour, who invited Mr Wilson to do just that. There has been no explanation why it was not led.
8 There is no evidence that Mr Wilson is mentally unbalanced: eccentric yes, obsessive certainly, but demented no. It follows that at all stages of…