CURTIS-MILLER -v- PARKS [2004] WASC 223

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASC 223
Case No:	MCS:53/2004	Heard:	1 NOVEMBER 2004
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	1/11/04
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order that video record of interview of Nathan Trent Miller be supplied to solicitors for Justin Lee Curtis-Miller Order that video record of interview of Justin Lee Curtis-Miller be supplied to solicitors for Nathan Trent Miller
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JUSTIN LEE CURTIS-MILLER PAUL RAYMOND PARKS NATHAN TRENT MILLER
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Directions in relation to video tapes Power of Court of Petty Sessions to order supply of video tape Section 570B(1)(e) and s 570F Criminal Code
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 570B(1)(e), s 570F
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : CURTIS-MILLER -v- PARKS [2004] WASC 223 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 1 NOVEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : MCS 53 of 2004 BETWEEN : JUSTIN LEE CURTIS-MILLER

Applicant

AND

PAUL RAYMOND PARKS

Respondent

FILE NO/S : MCS 58 of 2004 BETWEEN : NATHAN TRENT MILLER

Applicant

AND

PAUL RAYMOND PARKS

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Directions in relation to video tapes - Power of Court of Petty Sessions to order supply of video tape - Section 570B(1)(e) and s 570F Criminal Code

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 570B(1)(e), s 570F

Result:

Order that video record of interview of Nathan Trent Miller be supplied to solicitors for Justin Lee Curtis-Miller

Order that video record of interview of Justin Lee Curtis-Miller be supplied to solicitors for Nathan Trent Miller

Category: B

Representation:

MCS 53 of 2004

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr M C Owens

Respondent : Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Max Owens & Co

Respondent : State Solicitor

MCS 58 of 2004

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms R M Parks

Respondent : Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Edward John Myers

Respondent : State Solicitor

(Page 3)

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 4)

1 MILLER J: This is an application by the two applicants, pursuant to s 570F of the Criminal Code, for an order that each of the applicants be provided with the video record of interview of the other.

2 As the two applicants are jointly charged with the offences of assault occasioning bodily harm, it is appropriate that each should see the video recorded interview of the other. I therefore have no hesitation in making an order pursuant to s 570F of the Code that each applicant be provided with the video recorded interview of the other.

3 Although it is unnecessary to the decision I have made, I would make some observations about the provisions of the Code in relation to the supply of copies of videotaped records of interview with suspects. These observations are necessary because applicants such as those before me often have to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Curtis-Miller v Parks and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] WASC 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia dealt with an application made by Justin Lee Curtis-Miller and Nathan Trent Miller under section 570F of the Criminal Code. The applicants sought an order for the video record of their interviews with the police to be supplied to their respective solicitors. The applicants, who were jointly charged with the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm, argued that it was in their interest to view the recorded interviews of each other. The court was tasked with determining whether it had the authority to order the supply of these videotapes under the provisions of the Criminal Code.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Petty Sessions had the power to order the supply of videotapes of police interviews under section 570B(1)(e) of the Criminal Code. This section allows a person to be in possession of a videotape if acting at the direction of a court. The applicants argued that the term "court" in this provision included the Court of Petty Sessions, while the respondent contended that only the Supreme or District Court had such authority. Additionally, the court examined whether the Court of Petty Sessions could properly exercise its discretion under section 570F of the Criminal Code.

The court held that while section 570B(1)(e) of the Criminal Code allows a person to possess a videotape if acting at the direction of a court, this does not necessarily confer upon the Court of Petty Sessions the power to direct the supply of videotapes. Section 570F of the Code explicitly mentions the Supreme or District Court as the entities empowered to give directions regarding the supply and copying of videotapes, omitting the Court of Petty Sessions. The court found that the term "court" was not defined to include the Court of Petty Sessions, and thus, the Court of Petty Sessions at Bunbury had correctly held that it lacked the power to order the supply of videotapes in such circumstances. The court noted that a simple amendment to the Code to include the Court of Petty Sessions within section 570F would clarify the situation.

The court granted the applicants' request, ordering that the video record of the interview of Nathan Trent Miller be supplied to the solicitors for Justin Lee Curtis-Miller, and vice versa. The court observed that this decision aligned with the spirit of the law, ensuring that co-accused in joint charges could adequately prepare their defence by viewing each other's recorded interviews.

Orders