Crane v King - [2009] WASC 168

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: CRANE -v- KING [2009] WASC 168

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 24 SEPTEMBER 2008 & 13 FEBRUARY 2009

DELIVERED : 16 JUNE 2009

FILE NO/S: SJA 1084 of 2007

BETWEEN: TERESA JANE CRANE
Appellant
AND
BYRON KING
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE C P CRAWFORD
File No  :BUN 1611 of 2006, BUN 1612 of 2006, BUN 1614 of 2006, BUN 1615 of 2006, BUN 1616 of 2006, BUN 1617 of 2006, BUN 1618 of 2006

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Application for adjournment following discharge of counsel - Whether discretion miscarried - Legal practitioners - Whether failed to carry out instruction - Criminal law - Weissensteiner direction - Whether error of law

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S B Watters & Mr G C R Yin
Respondent: Ms L Goodsell

Solicitors:

Appellant: D G Price & Co
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Frawley (1993) 69 A Crim R 208
IAS (2004) 146 A Crim R 416
Lewis v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 94
Pickett v Fuderer (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980475, 27 August 1998)
Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217

McKECHNIE J:

Introduction

On 9 July 2007, after trial, the appellant was convicted of seven offences and acquitted of one offence. On 2 October 2007 she was placed on an intensive supervision order (ISO), and a community based order (CBO) for 12 months concurrent. She was also fined and ordered to pay compensation. The appellant in person lodged a notice of application for leave to appeal. There were several directions hearings at which I observed the appellant. The matter did not satisfactorily progress until such time as she was financially able to engage solicitors to act on her behalf. So it is that the ISO and CBO had almost expired before the appeal came on for hearing. Amended grounds of appeal were filed and I grant leave on those grounds.
The facts relating to grounds 1 and 3 are intertwined and I will deal with them together. Ground 2 affects only two convictions and raises a different issue - one concerning the Weissensteiner principle, so‑called.

Ground 1

1.The learned Magistrates' discretion miscarried when she determined not to allow an adjournment, such that the appellant did not receive a fair trial and there was a miscarriage of justice;
Particulars
In refusing the application -
a)undue emphasis was placed on the cost to the prosecution;
b)undue emphasis was placed on the inconvenience to the prosecution;
c)undue emphasis was placed on principles of case management;
d)an incorrect approach was taken to the appellant's dismissal of her counsel.

Ground 3

There was a miscarriage of justice caused by the conduct, contrary to instructions, of the Appellant's primary counsel,…

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 Crane v King

Details

AGLC: Crane v King [2009] WASC 168
Case: [2009] WASC 168
Decision Date: 16 JUNE 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Crane v King, the respondent, who is also the appellant, applied to the Court of Appeal to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court. The respondent had been convicted and sentenced for an offence against the Crown. His legal representation was discharged, and the respondent sought an adjournment to enable the engagement of new counsel. The single judge dismissed the application for an adjournment. The respondent appealed on the basis that the judge's decision was flawed.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the single judge exercised his discretion in a manner that miscarried, and whether the single judge erred in law by failing to provide a Weissensteiner direction. The respondent contended that the single judge did not properly consider the respondent's need for legal representation and that the judge should have directed himself to consider whether the adjournment was in the interests of justice, as per Weissensteiner v R.

The Court of Appeal found that the single judge exercised his discretion correctly and that the judge was not required to give a Weissensteiner direction. The Court held that the single judge had properly considered the respondent's need for legal representation and that the refusal to grant an adjournment was not an error of law. The Court found that the single judge's reasons demonstrated a proper consideration of the respondent's application and the interests of justice. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.

Orders