ALAMDAR -v- CLARSON [2002] WASCA 120

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 120
Published:	10/05/2002
Case No:	SJA:1160/2001	Heard:	24 APRIL 2002
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	24/04/02
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Conviction set aside Matter remitted to be dealt with according to law by a different Magistrate
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	MOHAMMED JAVAD ALAMDAR GEOFF CLARSON
Catchwords:	Courts and Judges Duty to give reasons Magistrate referring to evidence not admitted in trial in course of reasons Whether miscarriage
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Haysdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154 Love v Australian Securities Commission [2000] WASCA 404 Matsebula v Vandeklashorst [2000] WASCA 141 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Monaghan v Ostrowski [2001] WASCA 331 Pettit v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 75 ALJR 734 Skerritt v O'Keefe [1999] WASCA 183 Talbot v Lane (1994) 14 WAR 120 The Roman Catholic Bishop of Broome v Watson [2002] WASCA 7 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395 White v Goodger [2001] WASCA 259

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : ALAMDAR -v- CLARSON [2002] WASCA 120 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 24 APRIL 2002 DELIVERED : 24 APRIL 2002 PUBLISHED : 10 MAY 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1160 of 2001 BETWEEN : MOHAMMED JAVAD ALAMDAR

Appellant

AND

GEOFF CLARSON

Respondent

Catchwords:

Courts and Judges - Duty to give reasons - Magistrate referring to evidence not admitted in trial in course of reasons - Whether miscarriage

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Conviction set aside
Matter remitted to be dealt with according to law by a different Magistrate

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M M Flynn

Respondent : Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid of Western Australia

Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Haysdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507
Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154
Love v Australian Securities Commission [2000] WASCA 404
Matsebula v Vandeklashorst [2000] WASCA 141
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Monaghan v Ostrowski [2001] WASCA 331
Pettit v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 75 ALJR 734
Skerritt v O'Keefe [1999] WASCA 183
Talbot v Lane (1994) 14 WAR 120
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Broome v Watson [2002] WASCA 7
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395
White v Goodger [2001] WASCA 259

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: The appellant was convicted after trial in the Court of Petty Sessions of one charge of threatening to kill ACM Officer Gillies, the threat being said to have been made to Officer Gillies…

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 Alamdar v CLARSON

Details

AGLC: Alamdar v CLARSON [2002] WASCA 120
Case: [2002] WASCA 120
Decision Date: 10 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Alamdar, appealed against a conviction by a Magistrate of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The conviction stemmed from a dispute involving an alleged assault. The legal issue at the heart of the appeal was whether the Magistrate's reasons for the conviction constituted a miscarriage of justice due to the Magistrate referring to evidence not admitted in the trial. This error in the process potentially undermined the fairness and accuracy of the decision.

The Court of Appeal meticulously reviewed the Magistrate's reasoning and the evidence presented. It was determined that the Magistrate had indeed referred to inadmissible evidence in the course of providing reasons for the conviction. This constituted a significant procedural error as it could have influenced the outcome of the case. By referencing inadmissible evidence, the Magistrate failed to base the decision solely on the evidence that was lawfully presented and considered during the trial. This misstep rendered the decision potentially unjust, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal found that the procedural error was sufficient to warrant setting aside the conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates' Court to be dealt with according to law by a different Magistrate. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and ensuring that judicial decisions are based exclusively on admissible evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Conviction set aside

Matter remitted to be dealt with according to law by a different Magistrate

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.