EDMUNDS -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 70

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 70
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:163/2002	Heard:	10 DECEMBER 2003
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J WHEELER J WALLWORK AJ	Delivered:	7/04/04
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HOWARD CHRISTOPHER EDMUNDS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Common assault Application of Criminal Code (WA), s 244 and s 248 Defence against home invasion Provocation Degree of force able to be used by defender
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 24, s 244, s 245(2)(b), s 248
Case References:	Gray v The Queen (1998) 98 A Crim R 589 James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343 Minniti v The Queen (2001) 120 A Crim R 531 R v Bojovic (1999) 113 A Crim R 1 R v Craig [1998] QCA 277 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : EDMUNDS -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 70 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J

WHEELER J

WALLWORK AJ

HEARD : 10 DECEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 7 APRIL 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 163 of 2002 BETWEEN : HOWARD CHRISTOPHER EDMUNDS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : L A JACKSON DCJ

File Number : IND 1488 of 2001

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Common assault - Application of Criminal Code (WA), s 244 and s 248 - Defence against home invasion - Provocation - Degree of force able to be used by defender

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 24, s 244, s 245(2)(b), s 248

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr L M Levy

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms S J Yeo

Solicitors:

Applicant : Laurie Levy & Associates

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Gray v The Queen (1998) 98 A Crim R 589
James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343
Minniti v The Queen (2001) 120 A Crim R 531
R v Bojovic (1999) 113 A Crim R 1
R v Craig [1998] QCA 277

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Wheeler J. I agree, for the reasons given by Wheeler J that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed and a re-trial ordered.

2 WHEELER J: The appellant was charged that "… on 15 January 2001 at Maida Vale [he] unlawfully assaulted Karl Thomas Vanderslys, a public officer who was then performing a function of his office". He was convicted of common assault and appeals that conviction.

The Offence

3 The appellant had been telephoned by a police officer a short time beforehand and asked where he was, as the police were looking for him in order to investigate an offence. A number of police officers attended at 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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Edmunds v The Queen [2004] WASCA 70
Case: [2004] WASCA 70
Decision Date: 7 APRIL 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Edmunds v The Queen, the defendant appealed against his conviction for assault, arguing that his actions were in response to a home invasion and thus justified under the criminal code of Western Australia. The court was required to determine whether the force used by the defendant was reasonable in the circumstances of the alleged assault, particularly considering the doctrine of defence against home invasion and the degree of force permissible under sections 244 and 248 of the Criminal Code (WA). The court also had to examine the issue of provocation and whether it could have affected the defendant's perception of the necessity to use force.

The court considered the defendant's argument that he acted in defence of his home and family, assessing the proportionality of the force used against the threat perceived. It examined the evidence presented regarding the defendant's state of mind, the circumstances leading to the assault, and whether there was adequate provocation to justify the level of force applied. The court further analysed the statutory provisions concerning the use of force in self-defence and the extent to which they permit a reasonable response to a home invasion. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant's actions were not justified under the circumstances and upheld his conviction.

Given the court's analysis, the appeal was dismissed. The decision reaffirmed the principles surrounding the use of force in self-defence, emphasising the need for proportionality and reasonableness in the face of a perceived threat. The final orders confirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence as determined by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.