Conomy v Maden - [2015] WASC 179

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: CONOMY -v- MADEN [2015] WASC 179

CORAM: MARTINO J

HEARD: 12 MAY 2015

DELIVERED : 29 MAY 2015

FILE NO/S: SJA 1065 of 2014

BETWEEN: JERROD JAMES CONOMY
Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER MADEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE M WHEELER
File No  :MH 3334 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Stalking

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 40
Criminal Code (WA), s 338D, s 378E
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 83
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 63C

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:

CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 76; (1998) 197 CLR 172
De La Espriella‑Velasco v The Queen [2006] WASCA 31; (2006)31 WAR 291
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118

MARTINO J: By a prosecution notice lodged in the Magistrates Court on 15 August 2013, the appellant, Mr Conomy, was charged that in the period 23 December 2012 to 12 August 2013 he pursued the complainant in a manner that could reasonably have been expected to intimidate and that did, in fact, intimidate her, contrary to s 338E(2) of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) (Code).
The prosecution went to trial on 23, 24 and 25 June and 4 and 5 August 2014. The presiding Magistrate reserved his decision which he delivered on 7 August 2014. His Honour found Mr Conomy guilty of the charge and fined Mr Conomy $3,000.

This appeal

On 2 September 2014, Mr Conomy filed an appeal notice applying for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence with 12 grounds of appeal which he described as draft grounds of appeal, 'due to only receiving the transcript on the 29th of August'.
On 27 October 2014, Mr Conomy filed a document which he described as his 'updated grounds of appeal. Revision 2'.
This document had 18 grounds of appeal numbered 1 to 12 and 14 to 19. There was no ground 13. Grounds 5, 7, 10 and 16 were described as compound grounds and contained more than one ground of appeal. Mr Conomy filed further amended grounds of appeal on 21 January 2015 and 2 February 2015.
On 3 February 2015, Corboy J presided over a directions hearing. His Honour made the following orders:
1.Respondent is to file and serve submissions on the Appellant's applications for leave to amend the grounds of appeal and leave to appeal and in the appeal on or before 26 February 2015.
2.Appellant is to file and serve written submissions on or before Thursday 19 March 2015.
3.Within 7 days, the Appellant is to provide a letter to the Respondent and to the Court, attaching copies of…

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 179
Case: [2015] WASC 179
Decision Date: 29 MAY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales by Leeming JA, McDougall and Hamill JJ. The appellant, Conomy, sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for stalking offences under the Crimes (Stalking) Act 1990 (NSW). Conomy was found guilty of stalking Maden over a period of approximately two years. The court was tasked with assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and whether the sentence was appropriate.

The key legal issues involved determining whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Conomy's actions constituted stalking, and if so, whether the sentence imposed was excessive or inappropriate. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the behaviour alleged, the impact on the victim, and the criteria for imposing a sentence. The court examined the statutory definition of stalking and the specific facts of the case, including the frequency, nature, and impact of Conomy's conduct on Maden.

Leeming JA, with whom McDougall and Hamill JJ agreed, held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court found that Conomy's conduct, which included following Maden, sending unwanted messages, and making threats, met the statutory definition of stalking. The court also concluded that the sentence of a 12-month good behaviour bond was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders