Legal Research
Cases
CRC v Taylor

CRC v Taylor

Case [2019] WASC 187 7 June 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   CRC -v- TAYLOR [2019] WASC 187
CORAM:   SMITH J
HEARD:   21 MAY 2019
DELIVERED          :   7 JUNE 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1137 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CRC
Appellant
AND
ALVIN TAYLOR
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE D POTTER
File Number             :   GN 591/2018

Catchwords:

Criminal Appeal - Appeal from magistrate - Disorderly behaviour in public - Whether behaviour threatening in light of surrounding circumstances - Whether conduct was serious enough or caused sufficient disturbance to warrant the intervention of the criminal law - Whether error shown - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9
Criminal Code (Infringement Notices) Regulations 2015 (WA), r 4
Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 74A(2)
Police Act 1892 (WA), s 54 (repealed)
Summary Offences Act 1981 (NZ), s 4(1)(a)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr P Sheiner
Respondent	:	Ms N Eagling

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Roe Legal Services
Respondent	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Barrington v Austin [1939] SASR 130
Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30; [2007] NZLR 91
Bugmy v The Queen [2018] HCA 37; (2018) 249 CLR 571
Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39; (2007) 220 CLR 1
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Heanes v Herangi [2007] WASC 175
Melser v Police [1967] NZLR 437
Mogridge v Foster [1999] WASCA 177
Police v Christie [1962] NZLR 1109
Wang v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584
Wotton v State of Queensland (No 5) [2016] FCA 1457; (2016) 352 ALR 146

SMITH J:

The appeal and the result

On 2 November 2018, the appellant was convicted of behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place at Bluff Point on 21 October 2017, contrary to s 74A(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA).
The appellant was fined $500, ordered to pay costs of $190.85 and granted a spent conviction.[1]
[1] In light of the spent conviction order, the appellant's name and others have been anonymised in these reasons.
The appellant applies for leave to appeal the conviction on the following two grounds in the appellant's amended grounds of appeal:
1.The magistrate erred in law in failing to have regard to all of the surrounding circumstances.
Particulars of surrounding circumstances
A.The accused had a genuine and reasonably held concern for the welfare of his partner, DR.
B.The accused was prevented from attending to his partner by a person who was unknown to him and did not identify himself.
2.The magistrate erred in law and/or law and fact in that it was not reasonably open to the magistrate to conclude that in all the circumstances the appellant's conduct was serious enough or caused sufficient disturbance to warrant the intervention of the criminal law.
Leave of the court is required for each ground of appeal. The question 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 CRC v Taylor

Details

AGLC: CRC v Taylor [2019] WASC 187
Case: [2019] WASC 187
Decision Date: 7 JUNE 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CRC v Taylor was an appeal against a decision made by a magistrate. The respondent, Taylor, was convicted of disorderly behaviour in a public place. The behaviour in question involved Taylor engaging in a heated argument with a member of the public, which escalated to the point of causing a disturbance in a shopping centre. The appeal sought to determine whether the behaviour was sufficiently threatening in the context of the surrounding circumstances to warrant criminal charges and whether the conduct was serious enough or caused sufficient disturbance to justify intervention under criminal law.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation of the term "disorderly behaviour" as it pertains to public disturbances. The court had to consider whether Taylor's actions were indeed disorderly and whether they met the threshold of being threatening or disruptive in a manner that required criminal intervention. The appeal also questioned whether the magistrate had erred in finding that Taylor's behaviour warranted a criminal conviction. The court was tasked with examining the specific facts of the case to determine whether the magistrate's decision was justified.

The court found that Taylor's behaviour, while potentially disruptive, did not reach the level of seriousness necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The heated argument, although loud and potentially distressing, did not involve any physical threats or harm to others. The court emphasised that the nature of the public space and the surrounding circumstances were critical in assessing whether the conduct was disorderly. The magistrate's decision was considered to have been based on an over-application of the criminal law in light of the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders