B v Coan

Case [2021] WASC 127 30 April 2021

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   B -v- COAN [2021] WASC 127
CORAM:   SMITH J
HEARD:   15 MARCH 2021
DELIVERED          :   30 APRIL 2021
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1071 of 2019
BETWEEN:   B
Appellant
AND
ALISON COAN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE E DE VRIES
File Number            :   PE 66709 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Assault causing bodily harm - Whether magistrate erred in law in failing to take into account inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant - Whether verdict of guilty unreasonable or unable to be supported

Criminal law - Conduct of a fair trial - The right of an accused to make a closing address pursuant to s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) - Whether substantial miscarriage of justice arose because of failure to comply with s 145

Criminal law - Procedural fairness - Apprehended bias - Pre-judgment

Criminal law - Procedural fairness - Whether self-represented appellant denied opportunity to make sentencing submissions

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Whether preconditions are met for a spent conviction - No new principle

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 7(1), s 9(1), s 9(2), s 14(1)(b), s 14(2)
Criminal Code (WA), s 222, s 245, s 248, s 371
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 145
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 30
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA), reg 292A
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 45(1)
Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA), s 14(2)(b), s 25(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal out of time granted
Leave to appeal on ground 2 allowed
Leave to appeal on grounds 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Ms G N Beggs

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Ascic v Bedworth [2013] WASCA 174
Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASCA 131
Brewer v Bayens [2002] WASCA 271; (2002) 26 WAR 510
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 242 CLR 283
Brooks v Drysdale [2020] WASC 466
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Crocker v Vinicombe [2019] WASC 416
De Pledge v The State of Western Australia [2021] WASCA 1
Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292
Dunn v The Queen [2015] WASCA 126
Fantakis v NSW Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWSC 1333
Farkas v Thomason [2020] WASC 67
GNR v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 5
Hawker v Coulthard [2011] WASC 139
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Jones v Hyde [1989] HCA 20; (1989) 63 ALJR 349
Konings v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] WASCA 122
Lee Suarez v Cutler [2012] WASC 171
Long v Mayger [2004] WASCA 41; (2004) 142 A Crim R 289
LTC v The State of Western Australia [2021] WASCA 60
M v O'Neill

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 B v Coan

Details

AGLC: B v Coan [2021] WASC 127
Case: [2021] WASC 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal, the appellant seeks leave to appeal, out of time, the conviction and sentence imposed by a magistrate sitting in the Magistrates Court at Perth, for one count of unlawful assault causing bodily harm. The appeal is against the conviction and sentence on six grounds. The first ground is that the conduct of the trial was unfair because the appellant was self-represented and was placed at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis the prosecution, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The second ground is that the magistrate erred in law by failing to allow the appellant to make a closing address. The third ground is that the magistrate's verdict was, having regard to the whole of the evidence, unreasonable or unable to be supported. The fourth ground is that a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the magistrate refusing to allow the appellant to make a plea in mitigation. The fifth ground is that a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the magistrate being provided with, and taking into account for the purposes of sentencing, a criminal history pertaining to the appellant that was factually incorrect and/or inaccurate. The sixth ground is that the magistrate erred in law in failing to allow the appellant's application for a spent conviction order. The court allows leave to appeal on the second ground, but refuses leave to appeal on the other grounds. The court dismisses the appeal.

Orders