Ali v Hodges - [2022] WASC 40

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   ALI -v- HODGES [2022] WASC 40
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   28 JANUARY 2022
DELIVERED          :   10 FEBRUARY 2022
PUBLISHED           :   11 FEBRUARY 2022
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1130 of 2019
BETWEEN:   WAJID ALI
Appellant
AND
EMMA HODGES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1130 of 2019
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE R YOUNG
File Number            :   CI 45 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Causing harm to a Commonwealth public official – Statutory defence of self-defence – Objective reasonableness

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 7, s 8, s 9(1), s 10(3)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 10.4, s 10.4(4), s 147.1(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal denied on both grounds
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	N Sinton
Respondent	:	K Heslop

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent	:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Egitmen v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 214; (2016) 263 A Crim R 203
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190

SOLOMON J:

Introduction

In November 2017, the appellant Mr Wajid Ali, was a detainee at the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre. On 13 November 2017, Mr Ali was involved in an incident at the detention centre as a result of which he was charged with one count of causing harm to a Commonwealth public official, pursuant to s 147.1(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Commonwealth Criminal Code).
Mr Ali pleaded not guilty to that charge. On 7 November 2018, Mr Ali remained a detainee and stood trial in the Perth Magistrates Court. On the same day Mr Ali was found guilty of the charge.
It is now over four years since the incident and over three years since the trial. Mr Ali remains a detainee in detention. This application is his appeal against the conviction.
Mr Ali is entitled to appeal his conviction by reason of s 7 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) which provides that a person who is aggrieved by a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision.
It is important to point out at the outset, what this application is not about. Although the circumstances of the offence for which Mr Ali has been convicted relate to his treatment in detention, this application has nothing to do with why or whether he should have been, or why or whether he should remain, in detention. It is not about the various other proceedings in which Mr Ali has been involved. Nor is it about whether different factual inferences or conclusions should have been drawn from the evidence than those drawn by the learned magistrate – there is no challenge to the facts found by the learned magistrate other than in relation to Mr Ali's state of mind at the relevant time, as will be explained.
The…

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 Ali v Hodges

Details

AGLC: Ali v Hodges [2022] WASC 40
Case: [2022] WASC 40
Decision Date: 11 FEBRUARY 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Ali, for causing harm to a Commonwealth public official, Hodges, in breach of a statutory provision. The appellant argued that his actions were justified by the statutory defence of self-defence, claiming that his actions were objectively reasonable. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions were objectively reasonable in the circumstances, and therefore justified under the statutory defence of self-defence. The court needed to determine the appropriate test for assessing the objective reasonableness of the appellant's actions.

The court found that the statutory defence of self-defence required the appellant to establish that his actions were objectively reasonable. The court held that the test for objective reasonableness was whether a reasonable person in the appellant's position, with the appellant's knowledge and beliefs, would have acted in the same way. The court emphasised that the test was objective and required an assessment of the circumstances as they appeared to a reasonable person at the time of the incident, rather than the appellant's actual state of mind. The court found that the appellant's actions were not objectively reasonable, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory defence of self-defence. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The appellant was found guilty of causing harm to a Commonwealth public official in breach of the statutory provision, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The court's decision clarifies the test for assessing the objective reasonableness of actions in the context of the statutory defence of self-defence, and provides guidance for future cases involving similar issues.

Orders