Woods v Glynn - [2007] WASC 136

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: WOODS -v- GLYNN [2007] WASC 136

CORAM: JENKINS J

HEARD: 5 JUNE 2007

DELIVERED : 5 JUNE 2007

FILE NO/S: SJA 1029 of 2007

BETWEEN: LLOYD TODD WOODS
Appellant
AND
FRANCIS GERARD GLYNN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE K M BOOTHMAN
File No  :PE 51926 of 2006

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence for offence of escaping from lawful custody - turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 146
Prisons Act 1981 (WA), s 79
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 86, s 86(b), s 89(3)
Sentencing Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 8, s 23(2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr C L J Miocevich
Respondent: Ms K C Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant: Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cameron v The Queen [2004] WASCA 16
Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA (Miller J); Library No 980595; 14 October 1998
Voisey v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA (Franklyn J); Library No 8273;
.......... 30 May 1990

JENKINS J:

The decision under appeal

This is an appeal from the decision of a Magistrate sitting in the Magistrates Court at Perth on 23 September 2006 on Prosecution Notice 51926 of 2006 containing one count of escaping lawful custody. The Magistrate, after convicting the appellant of the offence, sentenced him to 6 months and 1 day imprisonment. The sentence was ordered to be served cumulatively on another sentence that the appellant was then serving.
The appellant filed his application for leave to appeal on 12 April 2007. Thus, he requires an extension of time within which to appeal.
The principles upon which an extension of time within which to appeal were stated in Cameron v The Queen[2004] WASCA 16 at [28] by McKechnie J. His Honour said:
"The principles governing the grant of leave when there has been a long delay have been settled. (Authority omitted). If there has been a long and unexplained delay exceptional circumstances must be shown before an extension of time will be granted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be a miscarriage of justice if an extension is not granted."
In this case the delay is some five months and this is considerable when seen in the context of the appellant's total sentence. As for the reasons for the delay, an affidavit has been filed by the appellant's solicitor in support of the application for an extension of time. It states that the appellant only decided to appeal when he discovered in January 2007 that he would not be eligible for parole on his total sentence. The respondent opposes any extension of the time limit.
The decision as to whether the appellant should receive an extension of time depends to a significant extent on the merits of his proposed appeal. Consequently, I intend to consider that issue before determining whether…

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 Woods v Glynn

Details

AGLC: Woods v Glynn [2007] WASC 136
Case: [2007] WASC 136
Decision Date: 5 JUNE 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Woods v Glynn involves the appellant, Woods, challenging the sentence imposed on him by the Magistrate for the offence of escaping from lawful custody. The original sentence was handed down on 23 September 2006, and the appellant sought to appeal the severity of the sentence. The appeal notice was filed on 12 April 2007, and the case was heard in the relevant appellate court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was appropriate and whether the appellant's grounds for appeal were valid. The court had to consider the specific circumstances of the case and the precedents set by previous cases to determine if the sentence was excessive or disproportionate. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the appellant's right to a fair trial and to challenge the sentence was upheld.

The court found that the appeal was indeed valid and that the original sentence was excessive, taking into account the unique facts of the case. The court acknowledged that the principles of sentencing in cases of escaping lawful custody should be applied with consideration of the individual circumstances. The appellate court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the original sentence. In its place, the court imposed a new sentence of 3 months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence for breach of bail imposed on 10 July 2006. This decision underscores the importance of tailoring sentences to the specific facts of each case and ensuring that the principles of justice and fairness are upheld in the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be an extension of time within which to appeal to the date of the filing of the notice of appeal;

2. The appellant has leave to appeal on the ground contained in the appeal notice dated 12 April 2007;

3. The appeal is allowed; and

4. The sentence imposed by the Magistrate on 23 September 2006 for escaping lawful custody is set aside and in lieu thereof, the appellant is sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment, cumulative on the sentence imposed for breach of bail on 10 July 2006.

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.