Culleton v Elliott - [2019] WASC 407

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   CULLETON -v- ELLIOTT [2019] WASC 407
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
HEARD:   7 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   7 NOVEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1100 of 2019
BETWEEN:   RODNEY NORMAN CULLETON
Appellant
AND
SHAYNE ELLIOTT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE R JOHNSTON
Citation:   RODNEY NORMAN CULLETON v SHAYNE ELLIOTT
File Number             :   NG 114 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Whether grounds of appeal have reasonable prospects of success - Leave refused

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth)

Result:

Leave to appeal in relation to each ground is refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	No Appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Herbert Smith Freehills

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

Hopes v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] WASC 198
Hopes v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2017] WASCA 108

QUINLAN CJ:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Magistrates Court, under pt 2 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) (the Criminal Appeals Act).
Today I refused leave in relation to each ground of appeal in the appeal notice, pursuant to s 9 of the Criminal Appeals Act. In accordance with s 9(3), the appeal is therefore taken to have been dismissed.
These are my reasons for doing so.
Mr Culleton commenced a private prosecution against the respondent by signing, and then lodging, a Prosecution Notice with the Magistrates Court at Narrogin pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (the Prosecution Notice). The Prosecution Notice was lodged on 21 December 2018.
The Prosecution Notice contained a lengthy description of the alleged offence by the respondent, an employee of the ANZ Bank.
A summary of the alleged offence (which was set out in submissions made on behalf of the respondent to the Magistrates Court and which the learned Magistrate accepted as accurate) is as follows:
(a)Mr Elliott commenced legal action against Mr Culleton on 29 August 2012 based on a fictitious mortgage (CIV 2473/2012 in the Supreme Court of Western Australia) without authority to do so.
(b)Mr Elliott knowingly frustrated 'the opportunity of settlement by preventing payment to an unknown lender/creditor' and did so 'by committing fraud' to:
(A)unlawfully obtain property;
(B)induce landowners to deliver their property; and
(C)gain a pecuniary benefit he had no right to.
(c)Mr Elliott shut down existing trading accounts of Mr Culleton without giving notice or obtaining Mr Culleton's consent.
(d)Mr Elliott, through his actions, has obtained 'stolen goods' from Mr Culleton and has sold those goods.
I agree with this description of what is alleged by Mr Culleton as a fair description of Mr Culleton's complaint (save that CIV 2473 of 2012 also involved a corporation).
The Prosecution Notice identified various written laws pursuant to which the offence…

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 Culleton v Elliott

Details

AGLC: Culleton v Elliott [2019] WASC 407
Case: [2019] WASC 407
Decision Date: 7 NOVEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Culleton, against his conviction for armed robbery, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The respondent, Elliott, was the victim of the robbery. The appeal was heard by a single judge who had to determine whether the grounds of appeal had reasonable prospects of success. The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence during the trial. The appeal judge had to assess the validity of the trial judge's decision and determine whether it was open to the trial judge to make such a decision.

The appeal judge found that the grounds of appeal did not have reasonable prospects of success. The appeal judge concluded that the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence was not an error and was properly made within the bounds of the trial judge's discretion. The appeal judge found that the evidence was relevant and probative to the issue of the appellant's identity as the perpetrator of the armed robbery. The appeal judge also found that the prejudicial effect of the evidence was not such as to outweigh its probative value. Accordingly, the appeal judge held that the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence was not an error and that the grounds of appeal did not have reasonable prospects of success.

As a result of the appeal judge's determination, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to a full court was refused. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld, and the respondent's conviction remained intact. The appeal judge's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles, and it was not open to the appeal judge to interfere with the trial judge's decision. The appeal judge's decision demonstrates the importance of the trial judge's discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence and the need for appellate courts to exercise caution when reviewing such decisions.

Orders