ANDERSON -v- PANKHURST [No 2] [2012] WASC 326

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 326
Published:	11/09/2012
Case No:	SJA:1073/2012	Heard:	4 SEPTEMBER 2012
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	04/09/2012
No of Pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time granted Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Conviction for lesser offence substituted
Category:	B
Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format

On Appeal from:	Jurisdiction: MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram: MAGISTRATE S M WILSON File Number: NO 1095 of 2009
Parties:	JOSEPH DOUGLAS ANDERSON LINDSAY DALE PANKHURST
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Appeal after plea of guilty Conviction for offence not open on admitted facts Whether conviction for lesser offence can be substituted
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 64AB, s 64AC
Case References:	Anderson v Prankhurst [2012] WASC 287 Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254 Hogue v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 102 Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120 McLeod v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 233

Last Updated: 18/09/2012

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : ANDERSON -v- PANKHURST [No 2] [2012] WASC 326 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 4 SEPTEMBER 2012 DELIVERED : 4 SEPTEMBER 2012 PUBLISHED : 11 SEPTEMBER 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1073 of 2012 BETWEEN : JOSEPH DOUGLAS ANDERSON

Appellant

AND

LINDSAY DALE PANKHURST

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S M WILSON

File No : NO 1095 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appeal after plea of guilty - Conviction for offence not open on admitted facts - Whether conviction for lesser offence can be substituted

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 64AB, s 64AC

Result:

Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction for lesser offence substituted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms V Amidzic

Respondent : Ms A Johnson

Solicitors:

Appellant : Amidzic Lawyers

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Anderson v Prankhurst [2012] WASC 287
Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254
Hogue v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 102
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
McLeod v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 233

(Page 3)

1 HALL J: On 4 September 2012 I allowed this appeal against conviction. These are my reasons for doing so.

2 On 26 October 2008, the appellant was stopped while riding his motor cycle and required by police to submit to a drug test. Positive results to methylamphetamine and MDMA were obtained following testing at the ChemCentre. The appellant was then charged with driving a motor vehicle whilst impaired by drugs contrary to s 64AB of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The appellant was served with a summons and endorsed a plea of guilty and returned…

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 Anderson v Pankhurst [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Pankhurst [No 2] [2012] WASC 326
Case: [2012] WASC 326
Decision Date: 11/09/2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Anderson v Pankhurst, the appellant, Anderson, sought an appeal against his conviction, following a plea of guilty, for an offence which was not open based on the facts he admitted. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Pankhurst, argued that the conviction for the lesser offence should stand, while Anderson contended that the conviction for the lesser offence could not be substituted based on the admitted facts.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether a conviction for a lesser offence could be substituted when the conviction for the original offence was not open based on the facts admitted. The court considered the principles of criminal law and procedure, particularly focusing on the nature of the plea of guilty and the consequences of admitting certain facts.

The court determined that the conviction for the lesser offence could be substituted, as it was open based on the admitted facts. The court emphasised that the plea of guilty had significant consequences and that the court had the power to substitute a conviction for a lesser offence when the original conviction was not open. The court granted the extension of time, leave to appeal, and ultimately allowed the appeal, substituting the conviction for the lesser offence.

The final orders of the court were to grant the extension of time, leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and substitute the conviction for the lesser offence. This decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the consequences of pleading guilty and the court's power to substitute convictions when necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time granted

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Conviction for lesser offence substituted

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.