BARTLETT -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2008] WASCA 15
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASCA 15 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:74/2007 | 7 SEPTEMBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER JA | 24/01/08 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WILLIAM SCOTT BARTLETT THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA |
Catchwords: | Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Orchard v The Queen [2004] WASCA 23 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BARTLETT -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2008] WASCA 15 CORAM : WHEELER JA HEARD : 7 SEPTEMBER 2007 DELIVERED : 25 JANUARY 2008 FILE NO/S : CACR 74 of 2007 BETWEEN : WILLIAM SCOTT BARTLETT
- Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MILLER J
File No : INS 186 of 2005
Catchwords:
Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : No appearance
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant : Thames Legal
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Orchard v The Queen [2004] WASCA 23
(Page 3)
1 WHEELER JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The grounds allege that the sentencing judge relied upon a medical report which was factually erroneous, and therefore gave no or inadequate weight to the effect of the drug Interferon upon the appellant.
2 Because there was a factual issue raised by the ground, orders were made requiring Dr Patchett, who had previously examined the appellant, to make a report addressing that issue. He did so by a report dated 16 December 2007. The appellant's solicitors have no objection to the application now being dealt with on the papers.
3 In his report, Dr Patchett advised that the appellant had said he had ceased the use of Interferon "about six to seven weeks" prior to the first relevant offence, not two weeks, as the appellant alleged. In a letter dated 10 January 2008, the appellant appears to accept ceasing Interferon at least five to six weeks before the offence. As to any relevant effect of Interferon, Dr Patchett states that the appellant's psychiatric symptomatology was "probably unrelated to Interferon and much more likely to be caused by the amphetamines he was abusing at the time".
4 The appellant points to Orchard v The Queen [2004] WASCA 23, as a case demonstrating that Interferon may have side effects which may provide some mitigation of an offence. I accept that such effects are possible. However, there is no evidence of any relevant effects in the appellant's case. The appeal therefore has no reasonable prospect of success.
5 I refuse leave and dismiss the appeal.
- AGLC
- Bartlett v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 15
- Case
- [2008] WASCA 15
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal had sufficient grounds to warrant leave. This involved assessing whether the appeal raised questions of law of public importance or if the decision below was incorrect. The court also considered whether there were other compelling reasons to allow the appeal to proceed. The court meticulously reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and the evidence submitted to ascertain the validity of the appeal.
After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the appeal did not meet the threshold for granting leave. The court found that the appeal did not raise questions of law of significant public importance and that the decision below was not incorrect in law. Additionally, the court determined that there were no other compelling reasons to allow the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and refused leave, upholding the original decision. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the legal principles applicable to the case and a thorough examination of the arguments and evidence presented.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave refused;
2. Appeal dismissed.
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.