ASCIC -v- BEDWORTH [2013] WASCA 174
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASCA 174 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:6/2013 | 19 JUNE 2013 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ BUSS JA MAZZA JA | 5/08/13 | |
| 37 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application made 19 June 2013 for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed Extension of time to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : ASCIC -v- BEDWORTH [2013] WASCA 174 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
PHILIP JOHN BEDWORTH
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : EM HEENAN J
Citation : ASCIC -v- BEDWORTH [2013] WASC 4
File No : SJA 1038 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Single judge dismissed appellant's appeal against her conviction in the Magistrates…
Continue reading Ascic v Bedworth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Ascic v Bedworth [2013] WASCA 174
- Case
- [2013] WASCA 174
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Ascic v Bedworth, the appellant, Ascic, sought to appeal against her conviction in the Magistrates Court for driving a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention. The appeal was dismissed by a single judge. Ascic applied to adduce additional evidence and extend the time to appeal, which were both refused. The central legal issue before the court was whether any of the proposed grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.
The court considered the criteria for allowing additional evidence in an appeal, which includes whether the evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing and whether it was likely to lead to a different outcome. The court found that the evidence Ascic sought to introduce was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing, and it was unlikely to result in a different outcome. Furthermore, the court considered the grounds of appeal and concluded that none of them had a reasonable prospect of success. As such, the appeal was dismissed and the application to adduce additional evidence and extend the time to appeal were both refused.
The court's decision was grounded in the requirement that any appeal must have a reasonable prospect of success. Given the evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing and would not likely lead to a different outcome, the court found that the appeal did not meet this criterion. The court also found that none of the proposed grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The application to adduce additional evidence and extend the time to appeal were also dismissed on the basis that they were unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
The court considered the criteria for allowing additional evidence in an appeal, which includes whether the evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing and whether it was likely to lead to a different outcome. The court found that the evidence Ascic sought to introduce was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing, and it was unlikely to result in a different outcome. Furthermore, the court considered the grounds of appeal and concluded that none of them had a reasonable prospect of success. As such, the appeal was dismissed and the application to adduce additional evidence and extend the time to appeal were both refused.
The court's decision was grounded in the requirement that any appeal must have a reasonable prospect of success. Given the evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing and would not likely lead to a different outcome, the court found that the appeal did not meet this criterion. The court also found that none of the proposed grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The application to adduce additional evidence and extend the time to appeal were also dismissed on the basis that they were unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application made 19 June 2013 for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed
Extension of time to appeal refused
Appeal 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.