Legal Research
Cases
Fox v Walker

Fox v Walker

Case [2004] WASCA 246 3 November 2004

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: FOX -v- WALKER [2004] WASCA 246

CORAM: JENKINS J

HEARD: 30 SEPTEMBER 2004

DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2004

FILE NO/S: SJA 1063 of 2004

BETWEEN: KAREN JANE FOX
Appellant
AND
GREGORY STIRLING WALKER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram  :MR JONES SM
File No  :MI 6239 of 2004, MI 6240 of 2004, MI 7040 of 2004, MI 7041 of 2004, MI 7042 of 2004, MI 7043 of 2004, MI 7044 of 2004, MI 7045 of 2004, MI 7046 of 2004, MI 7047 of 2004, MI 7048 of 2004, MI 7049 of 2004, MI 7050 of 2004, MI 7051 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal from decision of Magistrate - Convictions for receiving and fraud - Circumstantial evidence proving knowledge that relevant goods were stolen - Admissibility of unsigned admissions where formal admissions made about same issues - Honest and reasonable but mistaken belief - Out of court identification

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 24, s 409, s 409(1)(c), s 414

Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr J R Noble
Respondent: Mr J Y Johnston

Solicitors:

Appellant: Jeremy Noble
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Assafiri v Horne [2004] WASCA 40
Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
Jack v Smail (1905) 2 CLR 684
Mathews v The Queen [2001] WASCA 264
McKinney & Judge v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 468
Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1
R v Higgins (1829) 3 C & P 603
R v Smith [1981] 1 NSWLR 193
R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299
Wedd v The Queen [2000] WASCA
Yager v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 28

Case(s) also cited:

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395
Calvetti v Warner, unreported; SCt of WA (Owen J); Library No 8960; 4 July 1991
Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170
Dawson v The Queen (1961) 106 CLR 1
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
McWaters v Talbot, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 930359; 24 June 1993
Peacock v The Queen (1911) 13 CLR 619
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536
R v Gibson (1887) 51 JP 742
R v Kochnieff (1987) 33 A Crim R 1
R v Ollerton (1989) 40 A Crim R 133
Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584
Watt v Thomas (1947) AC 484

JENKINS J:

The Decision under Appeal

This is an appeal from the decision of a learned Stipendiary Magistrate sitting in the Court of Petty Sessions at Midland on 25 May 2004 whereby on complaints numbered 6239, 6240 and 7040 – 7051 of 2004…

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 Fox v Walker

Details

AGLC: Fox v Walker [2004] WASCA 246
Case: [2004] WASCA 246
Decision Date: 3 NOVEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fox v Walker, the appellant, Fox, was convicted by a magistrate of receiving stolen property and fraud. Fox appealed against his convictions, arguing that the evidence against him was circumstantial and insufficient to prove his knowledge that the goods were stolen. Additionally, Fox contested the admissibility of certain unsigned admissions made by him, as well as the reliability of an out-of-court identification of him by a witness. The appeal was heard by the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining the validity of the convictions based on the evidence presented.

The court examined the nature of the evidence against Fox, focusing on whether it was direct or circumstantial. The court noted that while the evidence was circumstantial, it was sufficient to establish Fox's knowledge that the goods were stolen, given the totality of the circumstances. The court also considered the admissibility of the unsigned admissions and found that they were properly admitted as they were relevant to the issues in the case, despite the existence of formal admissions about the same issues. Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of the out-of-court identification and concluded that it was reliable, as it was made under satisfactory circumstances and was not influenced by any factors that could have affected its accuracy.

The court of appeal upheld Fox's convictions, finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove his knowledge that the goods were stolen and that the unsigned admissions and out-of-court identification were properly admitted. The court held that Fox's argument that he had an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that the goods were not stolen was not supported by the evidence. The court also found that the magistrate's decision to admit the unsigned admissions and out-of-court identification was not erroneous, as they were relevant to the issues in the case and their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect they may have had.

The court of appeal dismissed Fox's appeal and affirmed his convictions for receiving stolen property and fraud. The court found that the evidence against Fox was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the magistrate's decision to admit the unsigned admissions and out-of-court identification was not erroneous. The court further held that Fox's argument that he had an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that the goods were not stolen was not supported by the evidence and that it did not provide a valid defence to the charges against him.

Orders