Conomy v Maden - [2016] WASCA 30

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: CONOMY -v- MADEN [2016] WASCA 30

CORAM: BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
MITCHELL J

HEARD: 19 JANUARY 2016

DELIVERED : 18 FEBRUARY 2016

FILE NO/S: CACR 113 of 2015

BETWEEN: JERROD JAMES CONOMY
Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER MADEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MARTINO J
Citation  :CONOMY -v- MADEN [2015] WASC 179
File No  :SJA 1065 of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal from Supreme Court's decision to refuse leave to appeal - Stalking - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2 div 3
Criminal Code (WA), s 338E

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

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

Conomy v Maden [2015] WASC 179
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
REASONS OF THE COURT:

Summary

The appellant and complainant met on a dating website and went out for six dates, the last of which took place on 12 December 2012. By 22 December 2012, the complainant had made it quite clear that she did not want the appellant to contact her again. Unfortunately, by this time the appellant was fixated on the complainant and appears to have been incapable of comprehending her message.
The appellant persisted in repeatedly sending emails, letters and text messages to the complainant. The complainant told the appellant to stop contacting her. She stopped responding to his communications. She sent an email message designed to make it look like she had closed her email account. She sent her brother to tell the appellant to leave her alone. She obtained an interim violence restraining order, which prohibited contact, on 13 February 2013. Despite all these steps having been taken, the appellant sent the complainant nine further email messages from 5 ‑ 11 August 2013.
The appellant was charged with a 'stalking' offence contrary to s 338E(2) of the Criminal Code. The magistrate found that offence to be proven. He found that the appellant had repeatedly communicated with the complainant between 23 December 2012 and 12 August 2013. He found that the communications in August 2013 were in breach of the interim violence restraining order. The magistrate found that the manner of the communications could reasonably be expected to, and did in fact, cause fear and apprehension in the complainant. These findings established the elements of the 'stalking' offence with which the appellant was charged. The appellant was fined $3,000.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence. The primary judge found that none of the appellant's many and detailed grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success, and refused leave to appeal on all grounds.
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 Conomy v Maden

Details

AGLC: Conomy v Maden [2016] WASCA 30
Case: [2016] WASCA 30
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Conomy v Maden involved the defendant, Conomy, seeking leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had refused to grant leave to appeal on a stalking conviction. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted and applied the stalking legislation and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The central issue was the interpretation of the statutory definition of stalking and whether the conduct of Conomy amounted to stalking under that definition.

The court examined the statutory definition of stalking, which requires a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another person and that causes that person to fear for their safety. The court considered whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that Conomy's conduct constituted a course of conduct that amounted to harassment. The court also had to determine whether the fear for safety element was properly established. The court carefully reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's application of the law, focusing on whether there had been any errors in the interpretation of the stalking provisions or in the assessment of the evidence. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly interpreted and applied the law, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the evidence in this case was largely circumstantial and that the interpretation of the statutory definition of stalking was a matter for the trial judge, whose findings were not shown to be erroneous. The court held that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to establish the elements of stalking as defined by the legislation. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's decision emphasized the importance of correctly applying the statutory definition of stalking and ensuring that the evidence presented was sufficient to meet the legal requirements for a stalking conviction.

Orders