CONOMY -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE [2015] WASC 178

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 178
Case No:	SJA:1010/2015	Heard:	14 MAY 2015
Coram:	MARTINO J	Delivered:	29/05/15
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to amend grounds of appeal granted Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JERROD JAMES CONOMY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction and sentence Breach of restraining order
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 10, s 40 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 60, s 61, s 63 Criminal Procedure Regulations 2005, sch 4 Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 79C Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61(1)
Case References:	Beamish v The Queen [2005] WASCA 62 Conomy v Maden [2015] WASC 179 Lutey v Jacques [2010] WASC 78 Rowe v Gaunt [2013] WASC 90 Topic v Lynch [2012] WASC 446

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : CONOMY -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE [2015] WASC 178 CORAM : MARTINO J HEARD : 14 MAY 2015 DELIVERED : 29 MAY 2015 FILE NO/S : SJA 1010 of 2015 BETWEEN : JERROD JAMES CONOMY

Appellant

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE D TEMBY

File No : MH 3335 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Breach of restraining order

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 10, s 40

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 60, s 61, s 63
Criminal Procedure Regulations 2005, sch 4
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 79C
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61(1)

Result:

Leave to amend grounds of appeal granted

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr D E Leigh

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Cases referred to in judgment:

Beamish v The Queen [2005] WASCA 62
Conomy v Maden [2015] WASC 179
Lutey v Jacques [2010] WASC 78
Rowe v Gaunt [2013] WASC 90
Topic v Lynch [2012] WASC 446

1 MARTINO J: The appellant, Mr Conomy, appeals against his conviction for breaching a Violence Restraining Order (VRO) and for the fine of $1,200 that was imposed for the offence of which he was convicted. The conviction and fine were imposed on 16 January 2015 following a trial which took place on that day. The appellant appealed within time by an appeal notice date 27 January 2015. He attached to his appeal notice grounds of appeal which he described as draft grounds of appeal, which he said would be finalised once the transcript was received and advice obtained. On 10 February 2015, Mr Conomy filed an application for leave to amend his grounds of appeal and his finalised grounds of appeal.

2 At the hearing of the appeal before me, both parties proceeded on the basis that the grounds of appeal…

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 Conomy v Maden

Details

AGLC: Conomy v Maden [2015] WASC 178
Case: [2015] WASC 178
Decision Date: 29/05/15

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Conomy appeals against his conviction and sentence for breach of a restraining order, brought before the court. The respondent, Maden, sought the restraining order under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic), which was subsequently breached by Conomy. The appeal raises questions about the legality of the restraining order and the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The primary legal issue was whether the restraining order was validly made and whether the sentence was excessive. Conomy argued the restraining order was flawed due to procedural errors and that the sentence was disproportionate. The court considered the validity of the order and the sentencing principles applied by the trial judge.

The court held that the restraining order was validly made, despite some procedural issues, because they did not affect the overall fairness of the process. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors and that the sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The orders of the court were to grant leave to amend the grounds of appeal, refuse leave to appeal, and dismiss the appeal. The decision confirms the validity of the restraining order and upholds the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to amend grounds of appeal granted

Leave to appeal refused

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.