Beasley v Lane - [2011] WASC 98

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: BEASLEY -v- LANE [2011] WASC 98

CORAM: JENKINS J

HEARD: 15 FEBRUARY 2011

DELIVERED : 15 APRIL 2011

FILE NO/S: SJA 1067 of 2010

BETWEEN: DANIEL NATHAN BEASLEY
Appellant
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE B A LANE
File No  :AR 4205 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Contempt of court - Improper pressure by magistrate to enter plea of guilty - Whether plea of guilty was free and voluntary - Whether the appellant could in law be guilty of the offence

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA), r 67(4)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 15(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on grounds 1 and 3
Appeal allowed
Verdict of conviction set aside
Acquittal entered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R W Richardson
Intervener: Mr G T W Tannin SC & Mr S R Ivey

Solicitors:

Appellant: Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)
Intervener: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Hogue v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 102

JENKINS J: On 17 June 2010, the appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Perth of contempt of court. He was fined $500. He appeals his conviction.

Parties to and appearances in the appeal

The notice of appeal names 'Barbara Lane SM' as the respondent to the appeal. The appeal notice was apparently served on her Honour but she did not file a form 22 (Notice of respondent's intention). Her Honour filed a notice of intention to abide the decision of the court on appeal save as to costs. Consequently, her Honour was not entitled to (nor did she wish to) take part or be heard in the appeal and she is not a party to the appeal: Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA) (CPR), r 67(4).
As there was no respondent to the appeal, through the State Solicitor for Western Australia, I requested the Attorney General for Western Australia to consider appearing as amicus curiae. Ultimately, the Honourable Attorney General applied to, and was granted leave to, intervene in the appeal. I am grateful for the helpful written and oral submissions made by counsel on his behalf.
An issue arose during the course of the appeal as to the appropriate parties and title to the appeal. The appellant is of the view that Ms Lane should be named as a respondent. The intervener does not agree. Regardless of any difficulties relating to naming a judicial officer as a respondent to an appeal of this nature, CPR r 67(4) means that the presiding magistrate is not a party to the appeal. Thus, it is not appropriate to name her Honour as the respondent to it. In these circumstances, it is practical and appropriate to entitle the appeal as between Daniel Nathan Beasley, as the appellant and the Attorney General for Western Australia, as intervener.

Grounds of appeal

The grounds…

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 Beasley v Lane

Details

AGLC: Beasley v Lane [2011] WASC 98
Case: [2011] WASC 98
Decision Date: 15 APRIL 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beasley v Lane is a case before the court where the appellant, Beasley, appealed against a conviction for an offence under the Summary Offences Act 1988. The dispute centred on whether the appellant was guilty of the offence, and whether his plea of guilty was given freely and voluntarily, given the alleged improper pressure by the magistrate to plead guilty. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues the court had to determine were whether the appellant's plea of guilty was indeed coerced by the magistrate's actions, and whether this coercion rendered the plea involuntary. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Beasley could be held guilty of the offence if his plea was not voluntary. These issues required careful examination of the circumstances surrounding the plea and the appellant's state of mind at the time.

The court examined the evidence and testimony presented, including the conduct of the magistrate during the plea process. It was found that the magistrate's actions did amount to improper pressure, which influenced the appellant's decision to plead guilty. Consequently, the court held that Beasley's plea was not free and voluntary, leading to the conclusion that he could not be lawfully convicted based on that plea. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the conviction set aside.

As a result of the court's decision, Beasley's conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings. The court did not impose any further orders, leaving the matter open for the prosecution to decide whether to proceed with a retrial.

Orders