CONOMY -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE [2016] WASCA 31

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 31
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:114/2015	Heard:	19 JANUARY 2016
Coram:	BUSS JA MAZZA JA MITCHELL J	Delivered:	18/02/16
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JERROD JAMES CONOMY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Application for leave to appeal from Supreme Court's decision to refuse leave to appeal Breach of violence restraining order Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2 div 3 Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61
Case References:	Conomy v Maden [2016] WASCA 30 Conomy v Western Australian Police [2015] WASC 178

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : CONOMY -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE [2016] WASCA 31 CORAM : BUSS JA

MAZZA JA

MITCHELL J

HEARD : 19 JANUARY 2016 DELIVERED : 18 FEBRUARY 2016 FILE NO/S : CACR 114 of 2015 BETWEEN : JERROD JAMES CONOMY

Appellant

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MARTINO J

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

File No : SJA 1010 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal from Supreme Court's decision to refuse leave to appeal - Breach of violence restraining order - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2 div 3

Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61

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 [2016] WASCA 30
Conomy v Western Australian Police [2015] WASC 178

1 REASONS OF THE COURT: The appellant was convicted of breaching a violence restraining order, with which he had been personally served, by sending text messages to the complainant on 13 August 2013. The prosecution notice alleged that offence against s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), which provides:

A person who is bound by a violence restraining order and who breaches that order commits an offence.

2 The appellant admitted that, on 13 February 2013, he was served with an interim violence restraining order which named him as a person bound by the order,1 and which relevantly provided that the appellant must not:

Communicate or attempt to communicate with [the complainant] by any means whatsoever including SMS or text messages or other electronic means.

3 The complainant gave unchallenged evidence that, on 13 August 2013, she received three text messages from the phone number she has always known as the appellant's. The text messages, sent at 11.37 am, 2.21 pm and 2.47 pm, read:

I miss you!

97.3

I'll be at the quarry tomorrow between 1pm and 1.30pm. If your not there…

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 31
Case: [2016] WASCA 31
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Conomy v Maden, the applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court that refused leave to appeal in relation to a conviction for breaching a violence restraining order. The Supreme Court had earlier found that the applicant's actions constituted a breach of the order, and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. The applicant now sought to appeal this decision, arguing that the Supreme Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Supreme Court's decision to refuse leave to appeal was correct, and whether the applicant's appeal should be allowed. In particular, the court needed to consider whether the evidence supported the Supreme Court's finding that the applicant had breached the restraining order, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The court also needed to consider whether there were any grounds for allowing the appeal, such as errors of law or significant errors of fact.

The court held that the Supreme Court's decision to refuse leave to appeal was correct, and that there were no grounds for allowing the applicant's appeal. The court found that the evidence supported the Supreme Court's finding that the applicant had breached the restraining order, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court also held that there were no errors of law or significant errors of fact that would warrant allowing the appeal. The court accordingly refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.