Daniels v Freer - [2017] WASC 247

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: DANIELS -v- FREER [2017] WASC 247

CORAM: MCGRATH J

HEARD :23 AUGUST 2017

DELIVERED : 25 AUGUST 2017

FILE NO/S: SJA 1095 of 2015

BETWEEN: GHIELMIE DANIELS
Appellant
AND
DANIEL MARK FREER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P G MALONE
File No  :PE 16395 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Failure to comply with reporting obligation contrary to s 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) - Appeal against conviction - Whether reasonable excuse for failure to report - Whether the learned magistrate erred in fact - No error found

Legislation:

Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA), s 63
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2

Result:

Extension of time in which to appeal granted
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms G Beggs

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd [1990] HCA 5; (1990) 168 CLR 594
Ganin v NSW Crime Commission (1993) 32 NSWLR 423
Ganke v Corporate Affairs Commission (1990) 19 NSWLR 449
Hodder v Skamp [No 2] [2009] WASC 53
Knott v Roberts [2010] WASC 267
R v Chairman of Parole Board (NT); Ex parte Patterson (1986) 32 A Crim R 266
R v Edwards [1975] QB 27; [1974] 2 All ER 1085
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Taikato v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462

MCGRATH J:

Introduction

The appellant seeks leave to appeal against a conviction for being a reportable offender who, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with his reporting obligation contrary to s 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) (CP Act).
The appeal was filed out of time and, therefore, an extension is required. Whilst there has been delay in bringing this appeal, the appellant is self‑represented. I will grant an extension of time in which to appeal. However, for the following reasons, leave to appeal is not granted and therefore, the appeal is taken as dismissed.

Legislative framework

The CP Act outlines a framework requiring certain offenders who commit sexual or other designated serious offences to keep the police informed about specified personal details and their location in the community. Relevantly, a person becomes a reportable offender when sentenced by a court for a reportable offence.[1] Alternatively, an application may be made in respect to other offenders, who would not otherwise be subject to the CP Act, if the court is satisfied the offender poses a risk.[2] A reportable offender must be given written notice of his reporting obligations and the consequences that may arise if he fails to comply with those obligations.[3]
[1] Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004, s 3, s…

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 Daniels v Freer

Details

AGLC: Daniels v Freer [2017] WASC 247
Case: [2017] WASC 247
Decision Date: 25 AUGUST 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Daniels v Freer, the appellant, Freer, appealed against a conviction for failing to comply with a reporting obligation under section 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA). The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where Freer argued that the learned magistrate erred in finding that there was no reasonable excuse for the non-compliance with the reporting requirement. The central issue before the court was whether the magistrate had erred in fact in determining that there was no reasonable excuse for Freer's failure to report as required.

The court examined the evidence presented and the findings made by the magistrate. It was established that the obligation to report was clear and unambiguous, and the onus was on Freer to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The magistrate had considered the evidence and found that Freer had not provided sufficient grounds to establish a reasonable excuse. The court found that the magistrate's decision was supported by the evidence and that there was no error in the findings made. The court held that the magistrate's assessment of the evidence and the determination of the absence of a reasonable excuse was correct.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed. The conviction for failure to comply with the reporting obligation under section 63(1) of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) was upheld. The court confirmed that the magistrate had not erred in fact and that the decision was properly based on the evidence presented. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction upheld, with no further orders made regarding the matter.

Orders