Evans v WA Police - [2023] WASC 495

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   EVANS -v- WA POLICE [2023] WASC 495
CORAM:   DERRICK J
HEARD:   22 JANUARY 2024
DELIVERED          :   7 FEBRUARY 2024
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1069 of 2023
BETWEEN:   HAYDEN CARL EVANS
Appellant

AND

WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1069 of 2023
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE L KEANE
File Number            :   RO 2000 of 2023

Catchwords:

Appeals - Application for leave for appeal against conviction - Application for extension of time - Appellant convicted after trial of using a mobile phone while driving a vehicle contrary to regulation 265(2) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) - Whether magistrate's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias - Whether magistrate's verdict was unreasonable or was not supported by the evidence

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA)

Result:

Application for an extension of time to appeal allowed
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Z R Clifford

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office (WA)

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

Duckworth v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 2
Eastough v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2010] WASCA 88
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Michael v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100
Nafranec v Nicol [2012] WASC 436
Prichard v M 6:8 Legal Pty Ltd [2024] WASCA 4
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Sturniolo v The State of Western Australia [2023] WASCA 147

DERRICK J:

Introduction

On 4 April 2023 the appellant was charged with one offence of using a mobile phone while driving a vehicle contrary to regulation 265(2) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) (Code).
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The appellant's short trial took place before Magistrate Keane on 17 July 2023. The appellant represented himself at the trial.
Immediately following closing addresses the magistrate delivered her oral reasons for decision. Her Honour found the appellant guilty of the charged offence. Her Honour fined the appellant $500 for the offence.
The appellant, who is not legally represented, applies for an extension of time within which to appeal and for leave to appeal against the decision of the magistrate convicting him of the offence.[1]
[1] The application for leave to appeal is made under div 2 of pt 2 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) (CAA). The decision of the magistrate to convict the appellant of the offence is a decision that may be appealed by the appellant: CAA, s 6(c) and s 7(1).
On 18 October 2023 a registrar of this court made an order that the applications for an extension of time within which to appeal and for leave to appeal…

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 Evans v WA Police

Details

AGLC: Evans v WA Police [2023] WASC 495
Case: [2023] WASC 495
Decision Date: 7 FEBRUARY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Evans was convicted in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia for using a mobile phone while driving, in breach of regulation 265(2) of the Road Traffic Code 2000. Evans sought leave to appeal against his conviction, citing that the magistrate's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence. The appeal centred on the legal sufficiency of the magistrate's conduct and the verdict reached in the trial.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate's conduct during the trial created a reasonable apprehension of bias and whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appellant contended that the magistrate's conduct was biased and that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence presented at trial. The court was required to consider the magistrate's conduct and determine if it was such as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and if the verdict was open to the magistrate on the evidence presented.

The court found that the magistrate's conduct did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the verdict was both reasonable and supported by the evidence. The magistrate's conduct was reviewed in its entirety, and the court determined that there was no basis for concluding that the magistrate was biased. Furthermore, the court held that the verdict was open to the magistrate based on the evidence presented, and that the appellant's contention that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence was unfounded. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court did not grant leave to appeal against the conviction and dismissed the application for an extension of time. The appellant's arguments regarding the magistrate's conduct and the verdict were rejected, and the conviction stood. The court emphasised the importance of the trial process and the role of the magistrate in ensuring a fair trial, and held that the appellant's concerns did not undermine the integrity of the trial or the verdict reached.

Orders