Legal Research
Cases
Woodhouse v Leslie

Woodhouse v Leslie

Case [2023] WASC 11 23 January 2023

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   WOODHOUSE -v- LESLIE [2023] WASC 11
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   30 NOVEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   23 JANUARY 2023
PUBLISHED           :   24 JANUARY 2023
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1056 of 2022
BETWEEN:   CLAYTON STEVEN WOODHOUSE
Appellant
AND
NATHAN JOHN LESLIE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1056 of 2022
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   CHIEF MAGISTRATE HEATH
File Number            :   PE 41484 of 2021

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Appellant convicted of fraud - Appellant sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment - Where prosecution agreed that an Intensive Supervision Order was appropriate - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Whether magistrate ought to have suspended term of imprisonment - Dinsdale v The Queen - Whether magistrate engaged in two step sentencing process
Criminal law - Miscarriage of justice - Where fresh evidence available after trial - Where fresh evidence impacts upon appellant's motivation - Whether strong probability that fresh evidence would have produced a different outcome at first instance

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 8(1), s 9(1), s 14(5), s 31(4), s 39, s 40(1)(e)
Criminal Code 1913 (WA) s 409(1)(c)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) Pt 10, s 9AA(5), s 76, s 6(2), s 84A

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentence of 12 months' immediate imprisonment set aside
Appellant re-sentenced to 11 months 21 days' imprisonment, conditionally suspended for 12 months

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	D Grace KC
Respondent	:	J Whalley SC

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	David Manera Barrister and Solicitor
Respondent	:	State Director of Public Prosecutions

Cases referred to in decision:

Alonte v Beswick [2013] WASCA 207
Brown v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 228
Colwell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2012] WASCA 196
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Fogg v Western Australia [2011] WASCA 11
Franco v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] WASC 340
Gray‑Herewini v Lee [2013] WASC 200
Houghton v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2022] WASCA 7
Kabambi v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 44
Ninyette v Jones [2018] WASC 317; (2018) 68 MVR 186
O'Brien v Narang [2018] WASC 376
Roberts v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 239
Rubin v Western Australia [2016] WASCA 2; (2016) 75 MVR 274
Samuels v Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Shi v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 197
Stanley v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 229
Wheeler v R [No 2] [2010] WASCA 105
Wilson v Pymm [2015] WASC 449; (2015) 73 MVR 464
Yu v Western Australia [2019] WASCA 197

SOLOMON J:

Background

On 22 March 2022 the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of gaining a pecuniary benefit by fraud contrary to s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) encompassing 27 instances of offending in the total sum of $25,888.94.
In advance of sentencing…

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 Woodhouse v Leslie

Details

AGLC: Woodhouse v Leslie [2023] WASC 11
Case: [2023] WASC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clayton Steven Woodhouse, a former lawyer, appealed against a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court for 27 instances of fraud amounting to $25,888.94. The appeal was heard by Solomon J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appeal was based on several grounds, including the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that there had been a miscarriage of justice due to fresh evidence that was not available at the time of sentencing. The key legal issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the magistrate had engaged in the correct two-step sentencing process, and whether the fresh evidence demonstrated a miscarriage of justice.

Solomon J found that while the sentence was within the range of available sentences, the magistrate's reasoning could have been more comprehensive. However, the court concluded that the magistrate had engaged in the two-step sentencing process as required by law. The court also found that the fresh evidence, which revealed the appellant's motive for offending was driven by drug debts and undiagnosed ADHD, rather than greed, constituted a miscarriage of justice. In light of the fresh evidence and other mitigating factors, Solomon J resentenced the appellant to 11 months and 21 days' imprisonment, conditionally suspended for 12 months, with a programme requirement under s 84A of the Sentencing Act to address the appellant's substance misuse and any outstanding treatment needs.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, the sentence of 12 months' immediate imprisonment was set aside, and the appellant was re-sentenced to 11 months and 21 days' imprisonment, conditionally suspended for 12 months, with a programme requirement under s 84A of the Sentencing Act.

Orders