Francis v Todd

Case [2011] WASC 185

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   FRANCIS -v- TODD [2011] WASC 185

CORAM:   EDELMAN J

HEARD:   29 JULY 2011

DELIVERED          :   3 AUGUST 2011

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1052 of 2011

BETWEEN:   OLIVER ROBERT FRANCIS

Appellant

AND

JASON DANIEL TODD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :MAGISTRATE P E HEANEY

File No  :PE 57326 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Unlawful wounding - Obligation to give reasons for decision which are sufficient in the circumstances of the case - Section 31 of Magistrates Court Act 2004 - Operation of the proviso

Criminal law - Self-defence - Subjective element in the test for self­defence that the person's harmful act is a reasonable response by the person in the circumstances as the person believes them to be - Characterisation of 'harmful act' in determining whether the harmful act is done in self-defence

Criminal law - Good character evidence - Whether discretion should have been exercised to consider, and refer to, evidence of good character

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8(1)(b)
Criminal Code (WA), s 23A, s 248(1), s 248(2), s 248(4), s 301(1)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31
Magistrates Court Bill 2003 (WA), cl 31

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category:    A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr T F Percy QC & Mr G C R Yin

Respondent:     Ms G M Cleary

Solicitors:

Appellant:     D G Price & Co

Respondent:     Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438

Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430

Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASCA 131

Duffy v The Queen [1981] WAR 72

Melbourne v The Queen [1999] HCA 32; (1999) 198 CLR 1

Pallot v Harrison (Unreported, WASC, Library No 950261, 12 May 1995)

R v Falealili [1996] 3 NZLR 664

Scolaro v Shephard [No 2] [2010] WASC 271

Tran v Clayton [2003] WASCA 318

Wainohu v New South Wales [2011] HCA 24

Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 224 CLR 300

EDELMAN J: 

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal from conviction for unlawful wounding.  The grounds of appeal concern the obligation to give reasons for decision which are sufficient in all the circumstances; the elements of self‑defence; and the role of good character.

Background and the magistrate's decision

  1. The appellant was charged, pursuant to s 301(1) of the Criminal Code (WA), with unlawfully wounding the complainant on 19 September 2009. At trial, the appellant formally admitted that he committed an act which wounded the complainant on 19 September 2009. There was no dispute that the complainant received a substantial laceration to his nose. But the appellant denied that the wounding was unlawful, relying upon the defences of unwilled act (Criminal Code, s 23A) and self‑defence (Criminal Code, s 248). After a three day trial which concluded on 2 February 2011, the learned magistrate…

Continue reading Francis v Todd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Francis v Todd [2011] WASC 185
Case
[2011] WASC 185
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Francis, appealed against his conviction for unlawfully wounding the respondent, Todd, with the appeal centred on the sufficiency of the reasons provided by the Magistrate in the Magistrates Court. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, which was required to consider whether the reasons given by the Magistrate were sufficient in the circumstances of the case. The legal issues before the court included whether the reasons provided by the Magistrate were sufficient in the circumstances of the case, whether the subjective element in the test for self-defence was correctly applied, and whether the discretion should have been exercised to consider, and refer to, evidence of good character.

The Court of Appeal found that the reasons given by the Magistrate were sufficient in the circumstances of the case, as they identified the facts accepted and the law applied, along with the reasons for doing so. The court emphasised that the reasons, considered as a whole, cannot be divorced from the context of the case, including the manner in which the case was conducted, the significance of evidence or legal issues, concessions made, and matters that were not disputed. The court also found that the subjective element in the test for self-defence was correctly applied, and that there was no need to exercise the discretion to consider, and refer to, evidence of good character. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Section 31 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) (the Act) moulds this common law duty to give sufficient reasons by setting out, in general terms, a minimum content for reasons for decision. It provides as follows:31.Judgments, content of(1)The Court's reasons for a judgment in a case -(a)need only identify the facts that the Court has accepted in coming to its decision and give the reasons for doing so;(b)need only identify the law that the Court has applied in coming to its decision and give the reasons for doing so;(c)need not canvass all the evidence given in the case; and(d)need not canvass all the factual and legal arguments or issues arising in the case.(2)The fact that a judgment is given orally or in accordance with subsection (1) is not of itself a ground for reversing or modifying it on an appeal. Against the common law background, s 31 of the Act makes general provision for the core or minimum content for reasons for decision in a Magistrates Court. In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Magistrates Court Bill 2003 (WA), the purpose of cl 31 (which became s 31 of the Act) was expressed to be 'to ensure consistency between the material content of the court's judgments, to facilitate understanding by the parties affected and to aid determination of whether grounds of appeal exist'. Section 31 of the Act therefore requires that the judgment identify the facts accepted and the law applied, the reasons for doing so, as well as the underlying intellectual process behind the conclusions reached: Tran v Clayton [2003] WASCA 318 [37] ‑ [38] (McLure J); Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASCA 131 [31] (Mazza J). In each case, an assessment of whether the minimum content, or sufficiency, for reasons has been met requires consideration of the reasons as a whole, including findings which can be inferred from reasons: Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430, 443 (Meagher JA); Bennett v Carruthers [27] (Mazza J). Further, the reasons, considered as a whole, cannot be divorced from the context of the case, including the manner in which the case is conducted, the significance of evidence or legal issues, concessions which are made, and matters which are not disputed. Other factors to consider are whether (as in this case) the decision was reserved (see Pallot v Harrison (Unreported, WASC, Library No 950261, 12 May 1995) 6 (Owen J)) and, associated with that, the time period for which it was reserved (seven weeks in this case), whether there were substantial oral or written submissions (in this case, 31 pages of closing submissions from the accused and 27 pages from the respondent) and the nature and content of those submissions in relation to the issues concerned. The need to consider the reasons, as a whole, in light of all the circumstances of the case means that analogies with other cases will not usually be helpful to determine whether the reasons are sufficient. In light of the above discussion, the complaint in the first ground of appeal that the learned magistrate failed to 'consider all the evidence' in his reasons is misconceived. There was no obligation upon his Honour to canvass all the evidence in his reasons. Indeed, s 31 of the Act specifically negates such an obligation. However, the suggestion in the ground of appeal that the reasons were not 'adequate' is a shorthand expression which directs attention to the duty, set out above, to give reasons for decision which are sufficient in all the circumstances to satisfy the functions of the exercise of judicial power.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.