Woodman v Begg - [2025] WASC 317

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   WOODMAN -v- BEGG [2025] WASC 317
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   24 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   24 APRIL 2025
PUBLISHED           :   8 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1018 of 2025
BETWEEN:   JASON WOODMAN
Appellant
AND
BLAKE ALLEN BEGG
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1018 of 2025
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE G MACLEAN
File Number            :   KH 1219 OF 2024
PH 370-372 OF 2025
PH 2766 OF 2024

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Appeal against sentence - Whether miscarriage of justice due to magistrate re-sentencing appellant on erroneous factual basis

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal granted on ground 1
Leave to appeal refused on ground 2
Appeal allowed in relation to ground 1
Appellant re-sentenced

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr N Mcingolwane
Respondent	:	Mr L Geddes

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid - South Hedland
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

Cases referred to in decision:

House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Nang & Associates Pty Ltd v Chan [2022] WASC 12
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

FORRESTER J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 24 April 2025 and has been edited from the transcript to correct matters of grammar and infelicities of language, and to insert headings and references.)

Introduction

On 9 July 2024, the appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated common assault. He was sentenced to a Community Based Order (CBO) for a period of 8 months, with programme and supervision requirements and a community work requirement of 40 hours.
The appellant failed to comply with the CBO and was charged with an offence pursuant to s 131 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) (Act). Pursuant to s 133(1)(a)(iii) of the Act, the CBO was cancelled. On 7 February 2025, the appellant was sentenced by a different magistrate to a term of 7 months' imprisonment for the aggravated common assault, commencing on 7 February 2025.
The appellant now appeals that sentence, including on the basis that there was a miscarriage of justice because the learned magistrate who was called upon to sentence the appellant following his breach of the CBO was provided with an erroneous statement of material facts. An extension of time is required.
The respondent conceded the extension of time should be granted, and the appeal allowed on ground one, if ground one were amended to be in those terms.
For the reasons which follow, the respondent's concession was properly made. The appeal should be allowed and the respondent should be re‑sentenced.

Proceedings in the Magistrates Court on 9 July 2024

On 9 July 2024, in the Magistrates Court at South Hedland, the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woodman v Begg and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 317
Decision Date: 8 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Woodman v Begg, the appellant, Woodman, appealed against his sentence in the County Court of Victoria, arguing that the magistrate had re-sentenced him based on incorrect facts, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The respondent, Begg, was the prosecutor. The matter originated from an incident where Woodman was convicted of assaulting his partner and sentenced to imprisonment. After an initial appeal against his sentence, the magistrate re-sentenced Woodman on the basis of additional information. Woodman argued that the re-sentencing was flawed because it was based on incorrect factual assumptions.

The court was required to determine whether the magistrate's re-sentencing process was lawful and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances. Central to this was whether the magistrate had correctly identified and relied on the relevant facts when re-sentencing Woodman. The court also needed to assess whether the re-sentencing led to a miscarriage of justice, as claimed by Woodman.

The court found that the magistrate had indeed re-sentenced Woodman based on incorrect factual assumptions. The court concluded that the magistrate's reliance on these incorrect facts constituted a significant error in the re-sentencing process, resulting in a sentence that was harsher than it should have been. Consequently, the court held that the re-sentencing process led to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was restored. The court also ordered that the matter be remitted to the County Court for a proper re-sentencing hearing based on the correct facts.

Orders