ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No               :  SJA 1052 of 2009
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE R K BLACK
File No  :PE 5094 of 2008
For File No               :  SJA 1053 of 2009
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE R K BLACK
File No  :PE 5093 of 2008

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Practice and procedure - Appeals against conviction on charges of assault occasioning bodily harm - Pleas of self-defence and aiding in self-defence - Burden of proof upon prosecution to negate or rule out defence pleas - Whether magistrate erred in application of the rule in Browne v Dunn - Whether findings by magistrate sufficient to negate defence pleas - Ruling that matters raised in defence during trial were properly considered and there was no error of law - Appeals dismissed

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 24, s 222, s 223, s 248, s 250, s 317(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 112

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

SJA 1052 of 2009

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S B Watters
Respondent: Ms M Mattocks

Solicitors:

Appellant: Taylor Smart
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

SJA 1053 of 2009

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S B Watters
Respondent: Ms M Mattocks

Solicitors:

Appellant: Taylor Smart
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437
Anderson v Davis [2009] WASC 38
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 HL
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32; (1991) 21 WAR 226
Harling v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507
MWJ v The Queen [2005] HCA 74; (2005) 222 ALR 436
Pezzino v State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 131
Quinlan v The Police [2007] WASC 44
The State of Western Australia v Pollock [2009] WASCA 96
WCW v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 232

HASLUCK J:

Introduction

The appellants, Matthew Donald Cameron and Joseph Peter Cameron, were each charged with an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm pursuant to s 317(1) of the Criminal Code (WA). The charges arose out of an incident which occurred at the home of the complainant, Caleb Francis Pullella, in Willetton in the early hours of 23 September 2007.
The appellants denied the charges with the result that the matter was tried before his Honour Magistrate Black on 24 November 2008 and on various days thereafter. The appellants were represented by counsel at 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 Cameron v Hume

Details

AGLC: Cameron v Hume [2009] WASC 265
Case: [2009] WASC 265
Decision Date: 17 SEPTEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cameron v Hume involved an appeal by the respondent against his conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The respondent had been found guilty by a magistrate after pleading self-defence and aiding in self-defence. The appeal centred on the sufficiency of the magistrate's findings in relation to the respondent's defence pleas and whether there was an error in the application of the rule in Browne v Dunn. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the magistrate's decision was legally sound, and whether the burden of proof had been correctly applied to negate the defence pleas.

The central legal issue was whether the magistrate erred in applying the rule in Browne v Dunn and whether the findings made were sufficient to negate the respondent's defence pleas. The Court of Appeal considered whether the prosecution had met the burden of proof required to rule out the defence pleas, and whether the magistrate had properly evaluated the evidence in light of these pleas. The court examined whether the magistrate's findings were adequate and whether the legal principles applied were correct.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the magistrate's findings were sufficient to negate the defence pleas and that no error of law was made in the application of the rule in Browne v Dunn. The court concluded that the matters raised in defence during the trial were properly considered and that the appeal should be dismissed. The reasoning was that the magistrate had carefully weighed the evidence and provided a detailed account of the circumstances leading to the conviction, ensuring that the respondent's defence pleas were adequately addressed. The court found no basis to interfere with the magistrate's findings, affirming the conviction.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the conviction of the respondent. The court's decision underscored the importance of the magistrate correctly applying legal principles and thoroughly considering the evidence, particularly in relation to defence pleas. The Court of Appeal's ruling provided clarity on the application of the rule in Browne v Dunn and reinforced the legal standards required for the sufficiency of findings in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Cameron v Hume [2009] WASC 265

Most Recent Citation

Tetlow v Evans [2009] WASC 374

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Bennett v Carruthers
[2010] WASCA 131 Para 5

…self makes this clear as do cases such as Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32; (1999) 21 WAR 226; Anderson v Davis [2009] WASC 38; and Cameron v Hume [2009] WASC 265.…
Tetlow v Evans
[2009] WASC 374 Para 10

…Unlike Cameron v Hume [2009] WASC 265, the failure to cross‑examine seems to have been an influential factor in the magistrate's reasons. Mr Tetlow had taken part in a record of interview shortly after the event and gave his version of events. The failure of his counsel to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn of…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

The State of Western Australia v Pollock
[2009] WASCA 96 Para 5

…This passage was quoted with approval by Miller JA in The State of Western Australia v Pollock [2009] WASCA 96. I note also that in Pezzino v State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 131 Wheeler JA observed that s 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) requires a judge to instruct the jury on the law applicabl…
Anderson v Davis
[2009] WASC 38 Para 3

…It emerges from the observations of Johnson J in Anderson v Davis [2009] WASC 38 at [28] to [29] that there are two aspects to the rule. The first aspect is a rule of practice or procedure designed to achieve fairness to witnesses and a fair trial between the parties, whilst the second aspect relates to the weigh…
WCW v The State of Western Australia
[2008] WASCA 232 Para 1

…y (with appropriate directions being given) has arisen in the decided cases in various contexts. For example, in WCW v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 232 these observations were made by Buss JA concerning a line of defence arising under s 24 of the Criminal Code at [8], [9]: Where there is evidence, fi…
Rogers v The State of Western Australia
[2008] WASCA 201 Para 2

…The Queen [2005] HCA 34; (2005) 227 CLR 166, and note particularly the observations of McHugh J at 198 - 199 [83] - [84]; Rogers v Western Australia [2008] WASCA 201 [25] - [26] (Steytler P, Miller JA and Murray AJA agreeing). Rogers was also a case where it was argued that the issue of an honest and reasonable mi…
CTM v The Queen
[2008] HCA 25 Para 1

…f an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief by the accused, the burden of negativing the defence rests upon the prosecution. See CTM v The Queen (2008) 82 ALJR 978 [8], [35] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Crennan and Kiefel JJ); Loveday , (268) (Philp J), (271) (Stanley J); Lyons , (299). The question for a trial judge in…
Quinlan v The Police
[2007] WASC 44 Para 3

…circumstances in which a judge sitting with a jury should leave specific issues to the jury for consideration. Decisions such as Quinlan v The Police [2007] WASC 44 suggest that when a magistrate is sitting as the tribunal of fact and law, it is permissible and will be sufficient for findings to be made that resu…
Pezzino v The State of Western Australia
[2006] WASCA 131 Para 5

…oted with approval by Miller JA in The State of Western Australia v Pollock [2009] WASCA 96. I note also that in Pezzino v State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 131 Wheeler JA observed that s 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) requires a judge to instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case, but a…
MWJ v The Queen
[2005] HCA 74 Para 7

…In MWJ v The Queen [2005] HCA 74; (2005) 222 ALR 436 the High Court looked at the application of the rule in criminal cases. Gummow, Kirby and Callinan JJ observed at [38] that the rule is essentially that a party is obliged to give appropriate notice to the other party, and any of that person's witnesses, of an…
Fingleton v The Queen
[2005] HCA 34 Para 2

…lant, the jury might be required, if a fair trial was to be had, to deal with the question of mistake under s 24: see generally Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34; (2005) 227 CLR 166, and note particularly the observations of McHugh J at 198 - 199 [83] - [84]; Rogers v Western Australia [2008] WASCA 201 [25] -…
DeVries v Australian National Railways Commission
[1993] HCA 78 Para 5

…nsistent with facts incontrovertibly established by the evidence or which was glaringly improbable: Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 at 479.…
Stingel v The Queen
[1990] HCA 61 Para 1

…ail to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not have an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief. Compare Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312, 334 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).…
Liberato v The Queen
[1985] HCA 66 Para 4

…of the prosecution, it must not convict an accused unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the truth of that evidence: Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507. The court has to positively believe beyond reasonable doubt the evidence presented by the prosecution: Harling v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437.…
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2)
[1984] HCA 7 Para 6

…court will have formed a different view, but whether the magistrate's approach in view of the evidence was defensible: Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521.…
Alford v Magee
[1952] HCA 3 Para 4

…In Australian legal history, the classic statement of the obligation of a trial judge when charging the jury is that set out in Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437 per Dixon, Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ at 466: It may be recalled that the late Sir Leo Cussen insisted always most strongly that it was of little…
[1999] WASCA 32
[1999] WASCA 32 Para 3

…or his or her decision. These must disclose adequately the intellectual process which has resulted in a particular determination: Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32; (1991) 21 WAR 226.…
Browne v Dunn
113 ER 1206 Para 2

…His Honour made some observations concerning the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 HL. I will say more about this later. However, having completed his review of the evidence, his Honour then summed up in this way: In my view, taking into account the matters already referred to, the differences between the evidence of…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
112 2 mentions (from Para 5)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Act 2008 (WA)
1 mention (from Para 2)