DAB v Capes - [2011] WASC 137

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: DAB -v- CAPES [2011] WASC 137

CORAM: MURRAY J

HEARD: 17 MAY 2011

DELIVERED : 17 MAY 2011

PUBLISHED : 19 MAY 2011

FILE NO/S: SJA 1012 of 2011

BETWEEN: DAB
Appellant
AND
AARON ROSS CAPES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  CHILDREN'S COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P HOGAN
Citation  :POLICE -v- DAB
File No  :JO 510 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Arson - Defendant charged with damaging property by fire - Fire extinguished before damage occurred - Spontaneous combustion followed - Whether resultant damage was wilfully caused by defendant - Whether miscarriage of justice resulted

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 441, s 443, s 444, s 444A, s 445A

Result:

Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
Orders made by the Children's Court set aside
Appellant awarded costs of the appeal

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S Vandongen SC
Respondent: Mr S Stocks and Mr J Chu

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Blechynden v Bogumil [2011] WASC 4
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
Pace v H (1994) 12 WAR 35
R v BBD [2006] QCA 441; [2007] 1 Qd R 478
R v Clark [2007] QCA 168; (2007) 171 A Crim R 532
R v Lockwood, Ex p. Attorney General [1981] Qd R 209
R v T [1997] 1 Qd R 623
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13

MURRAY J:

The charge, proceedings in the Children's Court and matters of fact

The appellant was charged that on 2 May 2010, at Alexander Heights, he wilfully and unlawfully damaged by fire, the property of a company trading as Red Rooster Alexander Heights, contrary to the provisions of s 444(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA). The appellant was born on 6 April 1995. As he had therefore just turned 15 when the offence was allegedly committed, although the offence charged, colloquially referred to as arson, would, if the offender was an adult, be triable only in the Supreme Court on indictment, this prosecution was to be conducted in the Children's Court.
The appellant entered a plea of not guilty and the matter came on for trial in the Children's Court at Joondalup before Magistrate Hogan on 10 December 2010. A sergeant of police appeared for the prosecutor, and the appellant was represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted.
The matter was adjourned to 29 December 2010, at which time a juvenile conditional release order for a period of 12 months was imposed, with supervision conditions, a program direction that the appellant attend substance abuse counselling as directed by the supervising juvenile corrections officer, and a requirement that he perform 40 hours of community work or service, again in accordance with the directions of the supervising officer. That…

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 DAB v Capes

Details

AGLC: DAB v Capes [2011] WASC 137
Case: [2011] WASC 137
Decision Date: 19 MAY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DAB v Capes involved a defendant charged with damaging property by fire. The defendant was alleged to have intentionally set fire to a property, causing significant damage. The matter was brought before the court to determine the defendant's guilt and the appropriate legal consequences. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant had indeed caused the damage by fire, and if so, whether the damage was a result of spontaneous combustion following the extinguishment of an earlier fire set by the defendant. The court had to assess whether the defendant's actions constituted an offence under the relevant criminal statutes, specifically whether the damage was wilfully caused.

The court examined the evidence presented, including expert testimony regarding the nature of the fires and the potential for spontaneous combustion. It considered whether the spontaneous combustion was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions and whether this linked the defendant to the subsequent damage. The court also needed to determine if the defendant's initial actions, which involved setting a fire that was later extinguished, were sufficient to establish a causal link to the subsequent damage. Furthermore, the court evaluated if a miscarriage of justice had occurred, given the complex interplay between the defendant's actions and the resulting damage.

After careful consideration of the evidence and legal principles, the court found that the defendant's initial actions were indeed wilful and that the spontaneous combustion was a foreseeable consequence of those actions. Consequently, the court held that the defendant was responsible for the resultant damage. The court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice, as the evidence sufficiently established the defendant's culpability. As a result, the court upheld the defendant's conviction for damaging property by fire.

Orders