Gransch v Walker - [2014] WASC 178

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: GRANSCH -v- WALKER [2014] WASC 178

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 15 MAY 2014

DELIVERED : 26 MAY 2014

FILE NO/S: SJA 1083 of 2013

BETWEEN: SEAN DAVID GRANSCH
Appellant
AND
DEAN ANTHONY WALKER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE B A LANE
File No  :PE 49339 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appellant convicted of entering security area contrary to Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Special Powers) Act 2011 (WA), s 63 - Whether any error by magistrate

Legislation:

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Special Powers) Act 2011 (WA), s 42, s 43, s 63

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr J A Davies
Respondent: Mr R M Mitchell SC & Mr P D Lochore

Solicitors:

Appellant: Shine Lawyers
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Attorney‑General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union (NSW) (1908) 6 CLR 469
ICM Agriculture v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 140
Ruby v Doric Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 94; (2013) 45 WAR 131
BEECH J:

Introduction

The appellant appeals against his conviction of one charge of unauthorised entry to a CHOGM security area, contrary to s 63 of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Special Powers) Act 2011 (WA). Section 63 of the Act provides that:
63.Unauthorised entry to CHOGM security area
A person must not enter or remain in a CHOGM security area unless the person -
(a)has the consent of the organiser of the CHOGM event being held or to be held in the area; or
(b)has a special justification to enter or remain in the area; or
(c)is otherwise authorised to enter or remain in the area.
Penalty: imprisonment for 12 months.
For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal, and the appeal.
It is convenient to begin by outlining the circumstances by reference to the reasons of the learned magistrate. Subject to one qualification, the factual findings of the magistrate are not challenged in this appeal.

The findings and the reasons of the magistrate

Her Honour began by outlining the basic and undisputed facts, as follows:
On 23 October 2012, Deputy Commissioner Dawson placed Mr Sean Gransch on the Excluded Persons List pursuant to section 42 of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Special Powers) Act 2011. On 24 October 2012 Mr Gransch was personally served with the letter informing him that he had been named in an excluded persons list and that he was excluded from all CHOGM security areas. Mr Gransch was at work in the Supreme Court gardens when he was served with the exclusion letter. At 12.35 pm Mr Gransch walked from the Supreme Court gardens, north along Barrack Street until he reached the Murray Street Mall. He then entered the mall and walked in Woolworths where he purchased a packet of cigarettes.
On 24 October…

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 Gransch v Walker

Details

AGLC: Gransch v Walker [2014] WASC 178
Case: [2014] WASC 178
Decision Date: 26 MAY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gransch v Walker involved an appeal against a conviction for entering a security area in contravention of a Commonwealth law. The appellant, Gransch, was convicted by a magistrate under the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Special Powers) Act 2011 (WA), section 63, for entering a security area during a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether there were any errors made by the magistrate during the proceedings that warranted a different outcome.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate had erred in admitting certain evidence, whether the appellant's rights under the Evidence Act 2001 (WA) were properly considered, and whether the conviction should be quashed due to any procedural irregularities. The appellant argued that the evidence presented against him was inadmissible and that his rights had been violated. The respondent, Walker, maintained that the evidence was properly admitted and that the proceedings were conducted fairly.

The court reviewed the evidence and proceedings to determine if any errors occurred. It found that the magistrate had correctly admitted the evidence in accordance with the law and that the appellant's rights were adequately protected. The court also concluded that there were no procedural errors that would warrant setting aside the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed, the conviction be affirmed, and the appellant be directed to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders