FRADALE -v- ZONIC [2016] WASC 114

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 114
Case No:	SJA:1079/2015	Heard:	4 APRIL 2016
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	8/04/16
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KERRY CHARLOTTE FRADALE SELVER ZONIC
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Appeal against findings of fact based on assessment of credibility Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Ascic v Bedworth [2013] WASCA 174 Bibovic v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 22 CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena [2006] HCA 1 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Gallagher v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 54 Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Murphy v Spencer [2013] WASC 256 Rankilor v City of South Perth [2016] WASCA 29 The State of Western Australia v Rayney [2013] WASCA 219; (2013) 46 WAR 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : FRADALE -v- ZONIC [2016] WASC 114 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 4 APRIL 2016 DELIVERED : 8 APRIL 2016 FILE NO/S : SJA 1079 of 2015 BETWEEN : KERRY CHARLOTTE FRADALE

Appellant

AND

SELVER ZONIC

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE G A BENN

File No : MI 3587 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appeal against findings of fact based on assessment of credibility - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr J F Bennett

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor's Office

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

Ascic v Bedworth [2013] WASCA 174
Bibovic v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 22
CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena [2006] HCA 1
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gallagher v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 54
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Murphy v Spencer [2013] WASC 256
Rankilor v City of South Perth [2016] WASCA 29
The State of Western Australia v Rayney [2013] WASCA 219; (2013) 46 WAR 1

BEECH J

Introduction

1 The appellant appeals against her conviction in the Magistrates Court of an offence of wilfully and unlawfully damaging property under s 445 of the Criminal Code (WA). The magistrate found that the appellant intentionally slammed her car door into an adjacent car in a supermarket car park, and that the adjacent car was being driven by Mr Chappell.

2 The appellant's primary ground of appeal is that the magistrate erred in finding that the driver's door of her car hit the driver's door of Mr Chappell's car, saying that this was 'not possible' because…

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 Fradale v Zonic

Details

AGLC: Fradale v Zonic [2016] WASC 114
Case: [2016] WASC 114
Decision Date: 8/04/16

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Fradale versus Zonic, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence on the grounds of error in the assessment of credibility and findings of fact. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The appellant contended that the primary judge erred in finding the complainant's evidence more reliable than his own, which was based on the appellant's implausibility and inconsistency. The appellant further argued that the primary judge had failed to properly consider the evidence provided by the appellant and his witnesses, and that there were significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The court held that the appeal against conviction was wholly without merit and dismissed it. The court found that the primary judge had considered the evidence of both parties, and that the appellant's evidence was implausible and inconsistent. The court further found that the primary judge had properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and made findings of fact based on the evidence presented. The court held that the appeal against findings of fact was also without merit, and that the appeal was based on the appellant's own facts which were not sufficient to establish any error on the part of the primary judge.

Leave to appeal to the High Court was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

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.