Applin v Stati - [2005] WASC 145

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: APPLIN -v- STATI [2005] WASC 145

CORAM: JENKINS J

HEARD: 27 APRIL 2005

DELIVERED : 1 JULY 2005

FILE NO/S: SJA 1135 of 2004

BETWEEN: GEORGE ARTHUR APPLIN
Appellant
AND
JAHNN NICOLA STATI
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram  :MR T J MCINTYRE SM
File No  :MH 4390 of 2003
Result  :Guilty of failing to provide prescribed information to a client - Fined $750 plus costs

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Breach of a condition attached to a crowd control agent's licence - Whether a standard trading session of a tavern is "any event or function" - Whether a crowd control agent and licensee of a tavern must give written notice of prescribed matters if crowd controllers are supplied to the tavern

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Spent conviction order

Legislation:

Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 44

Interpretation Act 1994 (WA), s 18
Liquor Act 1988 (WA), s 3, s 3(1), s 35(3), s 48(2)
Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA), s 4, s 34, s 35, s 35(1), s 38(1), s 43, s 64, s 88, s 94
Security and Related Activities (Control) Regulations 1997 (WA)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39(2), s 45

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D Mossenson
Respondent: Mr C S Bydder

Solicitors:

Appellant: Phillips Fox
Respondent: State Solicitor

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

Brewer v Bayens (2002) 26 WAR 510
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Scott (1990) 20 NSWLR 72
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291
Smith v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 527
Tambyrajah v Gablonski (2004) 147 A Crim R 18

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

JENKINS J:

The Decision under Appeal

This is an appeal from the decision of a Magistrate sitting in the then Court of Petty Sessions at Mandurah on 22 December 2004 whereby on complaint no MH 4390/03, being one count of breaching a condition attached to his crowd control agent's licence, the appellant was convicted, fined $750 and ordered to pay costs.

Grounds of Appeal

The grounds of appeal are:
"1.1The learned Magistrate erred in law in finding the trading of the Halls Head Tavern during its ordinary trading hours was an event or function to which the provisions of Clause 15 in Division 4 of Schedule 1 of the Security and related Activities (Control) Regulations 1997 applied.
1.2Alternatively, the learned Magistrate erred in law in finding that there was an event or function at the Halls Head Tavern constituting an event or function at which a crowd control business was engaged to provide crowd controllers within the provisions of Clause 15 in Division 4 of Schedule 1 of the Security and Related Activities (Control) Regulations 1997.
1.3Alternatively the learned Magistrate erred in law in finding George Arthur Applin as the crowd control agent on behalf of Bename Pty Ltd was obliged…

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 Applin v Stati

Details

AGLC: Applin v Stati [2005] WASC 145
Case: [2005] WASC 145
Decision Date: 1 JULY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against conviction and sentence by the appellant, Mr Applin, who was convicted of breaching a condition of his licence as a crowd control agent. The conviction arose from an incident that occurred during a standard trading session of a tavern. The respondent, Mr Stati, who was the licensee of the tavern, also faced charges related to the incident. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in New South Wales. The appellant contested both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether a standard trading session of a tavern constituted "any event or function" for the purposes of the licensing condition that the appellant was alleged to have breached. The court also needed to determine whether the appellant and the respondent, as the licensee of the tavern, were required to give written notice of prescribed matters if crowd controllers were supplied to the tavern. Furthermore, the court considered the appropriate sentence for the appellant's conviction.

The court found that a standard trading session of a tavern did not constitute "any event or function" for the purposes of the licensing condition. The court reasoned that the term "any event or function" was intended to cover specific, organised gatherings or activities, and a standard trading session did not meet this description. The court also found that the appellant and the respondent were not required to give written notice of prescribed matters if crowd controllers were supplied to the tavern, as the relevant statutory provisions did not impose such a requirement. Finally, the court considered the appellant's sentence and determined that a spent conviction order was appropriate, as the appellant had no previous convictions and had shown remorse for his actions.

The court allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction, and made a spent conviction order in relation to the conviction. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders