Legal Research
Cases
Edmunds v Starling

Edmunds v Starling

Case [2013] WASCA 225 27 September 2013

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: EDMUNDS -v- STARLING [2013] WASCA 225

CORAM: NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA
MAZZA JA

HEARD: 3 MAY 2013

DELIVERED : 27 SEPTEMBER 2013

FILE NO/S: CACR 205 of 2012

BETWEEN: MATTHEW EDMUNDS
Appellant
AND
KARL JAMES STARLING
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :McKECHNIE J
Citation  :STARLING -v- EDMUNDS [2012] WASC 14 (S)
File No  :SJA 1016 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against costs order - Interpretation of Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 4, s 6, s 7, s 14(1)(h), s 20(2), s 20(3)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 67, s 147
Justices Act 1901-1971 (WA), s 151, s 152, s 190, s 206, s 219
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 11(2)
Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA), s 4, s 5

Result:

Appeal allowed
Costs order set aside only in respect of $9,537 relating to proceedings in Magistrates Court

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr L M Fox
Respondent: Mr P J Kearney

Solicitors:

Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent: Rattigan Kearney & Bochat

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

C v Marsh [2006] WASC 41 (S)
ECS v Martin [2012] WASC 51
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd [1992] HCA 28; (1992) 174 CLR 178
Mastrangelo v Reynolds [2001] WASCA 347; (2001) 25 WAR 133
O'Dea v Fletcher (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920666, 20 November 1992)
Sorrell v Bryant (Commissioner of State Revenue) (Unreported, WASC Library No 980170, 7 April 1998)
Starling v Edmunds [2012] WASC 14
Starling v Edmunds [2012] WASC 14 (S)
Walker v Clough Property Claremont Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 232; (2010) 41 WAR 477
Williams v Beverley (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980474, 24 August 1998)
Winter v Fleet [2002] WASCA 128

REASONS OF THE COURT: This is an appeal, by a police officer acting in his official capacity, from a costs order made by McKechnie J pursuant to s 5(4) of the Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA) (the Act). The appeal is brought pursuant to s 16(2) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).

Background

The appeal to this court arises in this way. McKechnie J upheld Mr Starling's appeal against convictions which had been recorded against him after trial in the Fremantle Magistrates Court. His Honour made formal orders that the appeal be allowed and the convictions 'set aside'. He also ordered that the charges be remitted for retrial before another magistrate: Starling v Edmunds [2012] WASC 14. As it turned out, after the matter was remitted, the parties entered into negotiations as to the facts. In the end, Mr Starling pleaded guilty to the charges in the Magistrates Court. He was fined and spent conviction orders were made. The significance of these events will become apparent in due course.
Upon McKechnie J delivering his…

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 Edmunds v Starling

Details

AGLC: Edmunds v Starling [2013] WASCA 225
Case: [2013] WASCA 225
Decision Date: 27 SEPTEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Edmunds v Starling, the appellant, Edmunds, sought an appeal against a costs order imposed on him by the lower court. The case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA). The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with whether the trial judge had the authority to order the appellant to pay costs under the specified act, and if the costs were reasonably and fairly assessed.

The court was tasked with determining the scope and application of the Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA), particularly focusing on the discretion given to the trial judge in ordering costs. The appellant argued that the costs order was an error in law, asserting that the trial judge had no authority to impose such costs under the act. The court considered whether the trial judge's discretion was correctly exercised and if the costs imposed were reasonable and fair. It examined the statutory provisions and the precedents that governed the imposition of costs in similar circumstances.

Upon reviewing the relevant statutory provisions and the precedents, the court found that the trial judge had the discretion to order the appellant to pay costs under the Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA). The court held that the trial judge's decision was not an error of law, and the costs imposed were reasonable and fairly assessed. Consequently, the appeal against the costs order was dismissed. The court affirmed that the trial judge correctly exercised their discretion, and the costs were appropriately determined in accordance with the act.

Orders