Legal Research
Cases
C v WA Police

C v WA Police

Case [2024] WASC 79 22 March 2024

Substantial Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   C -v- WA POLICE [2024] WASC 79
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   12 DECEMBER 2023
AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED 6 FEBRUARY 2024

DELIVERED          :   22 MARCH 2024
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1057 of 2023
BETWEEN:   C
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1057 OF 2023
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE S OLIVER
File Number            :   PE52788 OF 2022

Catchwords:

Criminal law- Appeal against conviction - Where offence of trespass committed as part of climate change protest - Whether defence of emergency available - Where denial of procedural fairness - Whether substantial miscarriage of justice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)
Criminal Code Act 195 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted in respect of ground 1 and appeal dismissed
Leave to appeal refused in respect of ground 2

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	M I Olds

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

Cases referred to in decision:

Culverwell v Ginbey [2016] WASC 3
Fabrizi v Grasso (Jnr) as the Legal Personal Representative of Mr Grasso (Deceased) [No 2] [2022] WASCA 27
Floyd v Western Australia [2013] WASCA 33
Gerinoni Nominees Pty Ltd v Cullen [2022] WASC 337
Holland v Jones [1917] HCA 26; (1917) 23 CLR 149
Johnson v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 71; (2009) 40 WAR 116
Morgan v Cramer [2019] WASC 68
NPK v Western Australia [2020] WASCA 50
Perka v The Queen (1984) 14 CCC (3d) 385
Petersen v Western Australia [2016] WASCA 66
Petersen v Western Australia [42] citing Braysich v R (2011) 243 CLR 434
R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542
Rolles v Commissioner of Police [2020] QDC 331
Samuels v Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
Thomas v Christian [2021] WASC 151
Warnakulasuriya v R [2012] WASCA 10; (2012) 261 FLR 260
Webster & Co v Australasian United Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1902] St R Qd 207
Wilson v McDonald [2009] WASCA 39; (2009) 193 A Crim R 63
WS v Gardin [2015] WASC 97; (2015) 48 WAR 494

TOTTLE J:

Overview

On the morning of 29 November 2022 the appellant and four others sat down in a line outside the front doors of Dumas House in West Perth and glued their hands together. Those persons on the ends of the line glued their free hands to the ground.
The appellant participated in this activity to call attention to the fact that the State Government had not enacted legislation providing for any 'net zero' or emission reductions targets. Dumas House contains the offices of ministers of the State Government and public servants.
The appellant was charged with the offence of trespass contrary to s 70A(2) of the

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 C v WA Police

Details

AGLC: C v WA Police [2024] WASC 79
Case: [2024] WASC 79
Decision Date: 22 MARCH 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of C v WA Police involved an appellant, who was convicted of trespassing during a climate change protest. The appellant appealed against their conviction, arguing that the defence of emergency was available to them, and that they were denied procedural fairness during the trial. The case was heard in the court of appeal in Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defence of emergency was available in this case, and whether the denial of procedural fairness constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court had to consider whether the appellant's actions were justified by an emergency situation, and whether the failure to provide a fair trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the defence of emergency was not available in this case, as the appellant had not acted in response to an unforeseen and imminent threat to life or limb. The court also found that the denial of procedural fairness did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, as the appellant was still able to present their case and challenge the evidence against them. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders in the case, as the appeal was dismissed and the original conviction stood. The appellant was required to serve the sentence imposed by the original court, which included a fine and a suspended imprisonment order. The decision of the court of appeal was final, and the appellant was not able to appeal further to the High Court of Australia.

Orders