BENTLEY -v- GREANEY [2016] WASC 227

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 227
Case No:	SJA:1020/2016	Heard:	19 JULY 2016
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	29/07/16
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHELLE FAYE BENTLEY WARREN JEFFREY GREANEY
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Conflicting oral evidence of prosecution witness and accused Whether magistrate erred in assessing conflicting evidence Whether open to magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Dean v Legal Practice Board [2016] WASCA 63 Jones v The Queen [1997] HCA 12; (1997) 191 CLR 439, 450 Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400 The State of Western Australia v Olive [2011] WASCA 25

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : BENTLEY -v- GREANEY [2016] WASC 227 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 19 JULY 2016 DELIVERED : 29 JULY 2016 FILE NO/S : SJA 1020 of 2016 BETWEEN : MICHELLE FAYE BENTLEY

Appellant

AND

WARREN JEFFREY GREANEY

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P G MALONE

File No : PE 110767 of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Conflicting oral evidence of prosecution witness and accused - Whether magistrate erred in assessing conflicting evidence - Whether open to magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S D Freitag

Respondent : Mr C M Beetham

Solicitors:

Appellant : D G Price & Co

Respondent : State Solicitor's Office

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

Dean v Legal Practice Board [2016] WASCA 63
Jones v The Queen [1997] HCA 12; (1997) 191 CLR 439, 450
Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
The State of Western Australia v Olive [2011] WASCA 25

BEECH J

Introduction

1 Ms Bentley appeals against her conviction on offence of aggravated assault. The offence was said to have been committed against a resident at an aged care facility at which Ms Bentley was working.

2 Ms Bentley appeals on the grounds that her conviction was a miscarriage of justice in that the verdict cannot be supported by the evidence, and that the magistrate's reasoning reveals an error. For the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded of either ground, and would dismiss the appeal.

Overview of the evidence at trial

3 In substance, the prosecution case relied upon the evidence of one witness, Mr Min, who said he saw Ms Bentley drag a resident…

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 Bentley v Greaney

Details

AGLC: Bentley v Greaney [2016] WASC 227
Case: [2016] WASC 227
Decision Date: 29/07/16

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bentley, the appellant, appealed against his conviction for assault, arguing that the magistrate erred in assessing the conflicting oral evidence presented by both the prosecution witness and the accused. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the magistrate had correctly assessed the conflicting evidence presented by the parties and whether it was open to the magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt.

The court considered the conflicting oral evidence given by the prosecution witness and the appellant. The prosecution witness testified that the appellant assaulted them, while the appellant denied the allegations, claiming self-defence. The court noted that the magistrate had the responsibility to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their respective testimonies. The court held that it was open to the magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt based on the evidence presented, even if the evidence was conflicting. The court found that the magistrate had not erred in assessing the evidence and that the appellant's conviction was properly based on the evidence before the court.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the magistrate had correctly assessed the conflicting evidence and that it was open to the magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The court found no error in the magistrate's assessment of the evidence and upheld the conviction. As a result, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.