Legal Research
Cases
ChJ v Taylor

ChJ v Taylor

Case [2019] WASC 435 27 November 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   CHJ -v- TAYLOR [2019] WASC 435
CORAM:   CORBOY J
HEARD:   16 AUGUST 2019 & 1 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   1 OCTOBER 2019
PUBLISHED           :   27 NOVEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1121 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CHJ
Appellant
AND
BENJAMIN ROBERT TAYLOR
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1121 of 2018
Jurisdiction              :   CHILDREN'S COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE S DE MAIO
File Number             :   CCKA 535 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Requirements of Criminal Procedure Act 2004, s 120(2) - Whether magistrate delivered adequate reasons to explain finding of guilt - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 120(2)

Result:

The appellant be granted leave to appeal on each ground of the appeal

The appeal be allowed on each ground

The appellant's conviction and sentence be set aside and the charge be remitted to the Children's Court to be retried

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms C McKenzie (16 August 2019); Mr W Reid (1 October 2019)
Respondent	:	Ms G Beggs (16 August 2019); Ms K Cook (1 October 2019)

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	McKenzie & McKenzie
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

HS v Lawford [2018] WASC 257
Johnson v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 164
Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507
R v Anderson [2001] NSWCCA 488; [2001] 127 ACR 116
RMD v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 70
WS v Gardin [2015] WASC 97

CORBOY J:

(These reasons were delivered orally on 1 October 2019 and have been edited for publication.)

The appeals

The appellant was charged that between 15 December 2016 and 23 April 2017, at South Kalgoorlie, he indecently dealt with AB, a child under the age of 13 years, contrary to s 320(4) of the Criminal Code (WA) (the First Charge).
The appellant is a juvenile.[1] He was convicted following trial and sentenced to an intensive youth supervision order for a period of 6 months (the First IYSO). He appealed from his conviction and sentence on the First Charge (SJA 1121 of 2018; the First Appeal).
[1] The names of the appellant, the complainant and family members have been anonymised on account of the age of the appellant and the complainant.
The appellant was also charged that on 15 October 2017, at South Kalgoorlie, he indecently dealt with CD, a child under the age of 13 years, contrary to s 320(4) of the Criminal Code (the Second Charge). He was convicted following trial. The charge was tried before a different magistrate to the magistrate who heard the First Charge. The appellant was sentenced to an intensive youth supervision order for a period of 5 months and 2 days (the Second IYSO). The intensive youth supervision order was ordered to be served concurrently with the First…

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 ChJ v Taylor

Details

AGLC: ChJ v Taylor [2019] WASC 435
Case: [2019] WASC 435
Decision Date: 27 NOVEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of ChJ v Taylor, the appellant, ChJ, sought an appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed by a magistrate in the Local Court. The conviction related to an offence under the Crimes Act 1900, and the case was heard as a single judge appeal in the District Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the magistrate had provided adequate reasons for the finding of guilt, as required by section 120(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004. The appellant argued that the reasons given by the magistrate were insufficient and did not clearly explain how the evidence led to the conclusion of guilt.

The court considered the requirements of section 120(2) and the need for the magistrate to provide reasons that allow for meaningful appellate review. The court examined the reasons given by the magistrate and assessed whether they were sufficient to enable an understanding of the decision-making process. It was noted that while the reasons provided by the magistrate referenced the evidence and the law, they did not explicitly link the evidence to the elements of the offence in a manner that satisfied the statutory requirement.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that the reasons provided by the magistrate did not meet the standard required by section 120(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004. The reasons were deemed insufficient because they did not adequately explain how the evidence led to the finding of guilt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Local Court for a new hearing.

Orders