Alexander v Bakes

Case [2023] ACTCA 49

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Alexander v Bakes

Citation: 

[2023] ACTCA 49

Hearing Date: 

9 November 2023

Decision Date: 

20 December 2023

Before:

Mossop, Baker and Abraham JJ

Decision: 

The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against orders of the ACTSC affirming convictions in ACT Magistrates Court – where accused convicted of theft under s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) – where magistrate allowed amendment of charges pursuant to s 28 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (Act) – nature of the appeal to the ACTCA – whether decision of the appeal judge was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence – whether amendment of charges necessary – whether jurisdiction under s 28 properly enlivened – whether injustice to the appellant to allow amendment of the charges – appeal dismissed.

Legislation Cited: 

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 308

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 27, 28, 208, 214

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37O

Cases Cited: 

Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTSC 103

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172

Bakes v Alexander [2022] ACTMC 10

Bakes v Alexander (No 2) [2022] ACTMC 19

Barca v R [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 CLR 82

Borodin v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 83

Carroll v R [2009] HCA 13; 254 CLR 259

Coughlan v The Queen [2020] HCA 15; (2020) 267 CLR 654

Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; (2022) 274 CLR 651

Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118

Hudson v ACT Magistrates Court [2014] ACTSC 192; (2014) 9 ACTLR 295

Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77; (1937) 59 CLR 467

John L Pty Ltd v Attorney General (NSW) [1987] HCA 42; (1987) 163 CLR 508

KA v Linden [2021] ACTCA 22

Kingdon v State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 74; (2012) 223 A Crim R 449

Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29; (2023) 97 ALJR 758 at [251]

Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; 266 CLR 129

Lukatela v Birch [2008] ACTSC 99; (2008) 223 FLR 1

Martin v Purnell [1999] FCA 872; (1999) 93 FCR 181

McFarlane v Van Eyle [2022] ACTCA 68

Muench v McCue [2020] ACTCA 17

Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 225 ALR 161

R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158

R v Hawcroft [2009] ACTSC 145; (2009) 234 FLR 339

R v Liddy [2002] SASC 19; (2002) 81 SASR 22

R v Peters (1886) 16 QBD 636

R v Pfitzner (1976) 15 SASR 171

R v Ralston [2020] ACTCA 47; (2020) 285 A Crim R 159

Roberts v Rhodes [2014] ACTCA 20

The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 258 CLR 308

The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618

Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; (1979) 142 CLR 531

Texts Cited:

Pearce D,

Continue reading Alexander v Bakes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49
Case
[2023] ACTCA 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alexander appealed to the ACT Court of Appeal against orders of the ACT Supreme Court which affirmed convictions entered in the ACT Magistrates Court. The appellant had been convicted of theft under section 308 of the *Criminal Code 2002* (ACT). The central dispute concerned the magistrate's decision to allow an amendment of the charges pursuant to section 28 of the *Magistrates Court Act 1930* (ACT).

The appeal raised several legal issues for determination by the Court of Appeal. These included whether the decision of the appeal judge in the Supreme Court was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, whether the amendment of the charges was necessary, whether the jurisdiction under section 28 of the *Magistrates Court Act 1930* (ACT) was properly enlivened, and whether it would occasion injustice to the appellant to allow the amendment of the charges.

The Court of Appeal considered the nature of an appeal to the ACT Supreme Court from the Magistrates Court and the scope of the magistrate's power to amend charges. The court applied principles relating to the necessity of amendments and the potential for injustice to an accused when such amendments are permitted. After considering these matters, the Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal was without merit. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is 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.