Legal Research
Cases
A v Rigby

A v Rigby

Case [2019] WASC 466 19 December 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   A -v- RIGBY [2019] WASC 466
CORAM:   SMITH J
HEARD:   8 OCTOBER 2019; AND BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 16 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   19 DECEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1084 of 2019
BETWEEN:   A
Appellant
AND
PHILIP JAMES RIGBY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CHILDREN'S COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE P M HOGAN
File Number            :   PE 3683 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial case - Whether evidence supported verdict of guilty - Whether the magistrate's verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory on the evidence - Whether miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9
Criminal Code (WA), s 7(a), s 7(b), s 7(c), s 401(1)(a)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr A Elliott & Mr H Glenister
Respondent	:	Ms M M Yeung

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Cathal Smith Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Allami v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 230
Austic v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 110
Barca v The Queen [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 CLR 82
Bentley v Greaney [2016] WASC 227
Birdsall v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 79
Clarke v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 14
Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; (2001) 208 CLR 593
Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] HCA 28; (2014) 311 ALR 158
Giorgianni v The Queen [1985] HCA 29; (1985) 156 CLR 473
L v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 101
Marchesano v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 177
O (a child) v The Queen (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 970219, 9 April 1997)
R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30
R v Ciantar [2006] VSCA 263; (2006) 16 VR 26
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618
Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573
Taylor v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 210
Ward v The Queen (1997) 19 WAR 68
Williams v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 206

SMITH J:

On 7 December 2018, the appellant, A, pleaded not guilty in the Children's Court to one charge of aggravated home burglary with intent. The charge was that, on 8 October 2018, A entered or was in the place of F ordinarily used for human habitation, without F's consent, with intent to commit an offence therein, in circumstances of aggravation, namely in company with (two) other persons.[1]
[1] Particulars given in the notice of prosecution, PE 3683 of 2018.
The charge against A and another juvenile co-offender was listed for trial in April 2019. When the trial commenced on 26 April 2019, the prosecutor stated in opening, that either A or B, or another (adult), was the principal offender, or A and B were each an aider or…

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 A v Rigby

Details

AGLC: A v Rigby [2019] WASC 466
Case: [2019] WASC 466
Decision Date: 19 DECEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of A v Rigby, the appellant sought to overturn a conviction imposed by the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was a criminal conviction for a serious offence, with the appellant arguing that the evidence did not support the verdict of guilty. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with assessing whether the magistrate's decision was unsafe or unsatisfactory based on the evidence presented.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and whether the verdict reached by the magistrate was reasonable given the evidence. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient and that the verdict was unsafe, arguing that there were discrepancies and inconsistencies that undermined the conviction. The court was required to determine whether the evidence was capable of supporting a guilty verdict and whether the magistrate's decision was justifiable based on that evidence.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal considered the totality of the evidence presented during the trial, including witness testimonies, physical evidence, and any other relevant factors. The court examined the credibility and reliability of the evidence and assessed whether it was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the evidence was adequate to support the verdict and that the magistrate's decision was not unsafe or unsatisfactory. The appeal was dismissed, as the court found that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the verdict was appropriately reached based on the evidence.

Orders