Blenkinsop v Wilson

The appellant, Blenkinsop, appealed against his convictions for breaching a restraining order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant argued that the court granting the order was not validly constituted, that the prosecution notice was not valid, and that the prosecution breached its duty of disclosure. The appellant further contended that the prosecution abused process and that the charge and prosecution were for an improper purpose. Additionally, the appellant argued that the offence required intention as an element and that the prosecution did not prove the breach beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant also challenged the magistrate's findings on his expertise in computer software and hardware, and whether the prosecution had negated certain defences. The appellant further alleged that he was denied natural justice, did not receive a fair trial, and was entitled to costs.

The court considered the arguments raised by the appellant. Regarding the validity of the court granting the order, the court found that the issue was not properly before it as it amounted to a collateral attack on the order. As for the prosecution notice, the court found that it was valid. The court also found that there was no breach of the duty of disclosure or abuse of process. The court further held that the charge and prosecution were not for an improper purpose. The court rejected the appellant's argument that intention was an element of the offence and found that the prosecution proved the breach beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the appellant was not an expert on computer software and hardware, and that the prosecution had negated certain defences. The court also found that there was no actual bias or denial of natural justice, and that the appellant received a fair trial. Finally, the court held that the appellant was not entitled to costs as the legislation governing awarded costs in criminal proceedings was not void.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's convictions. The court found that the appellant's arguments were without merit and that the trial was conducted fairly. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to costs as the legislation governing awarded costs in criminal proceedings was not void. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and his convictions were upheld.