Green v Randell - [2023] WASC 239

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   GREEN -v- RANDELL [2023] WASC 239
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   3 APRIL 2023
DELIVERED          :   30 JUNE 2023
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1080 of 2022
BETWEEN:   KYLIE RAE GREEN
Appellant
AND
ELANAH RAE RANDELL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1080 of 2022
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE S OLIVER
File Number            :   AR 4243 OF 2022

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against acquittal for animal cruelty - No case to answer - Magistrate entered a judgment of acquittal - Whether no case to answer was reasonable based on the evidence

Legislation:

Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Verdict of acquittal quashed and retrial ordered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr I Weldon
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Mr I Weldon
Respondent	:	In Person

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

Antoun v The Queen [2006] HCA 2; (2006) ALR 51
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
Mulhall v Barker [2010] WASC 359
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

MCGRATH J:

The respondent pleaded not guilty to one charge that between 16 January and 18 January 2022, being a person in charge of an animal, namely a dog, she was cruel to the animal by confining it in a manner that caused it unnecessary harm, contrary to s 19(1), s 19(3)(b)(ii) and s19 (3)(d) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) ('Animal Welfare Act').[1] On 17 October 2022, the trial was held before the learned Magistrate in the Armadale Magistrates Court.
[1] Charge No AR 4243/2022.
At the close of the prosecution case, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent, finding that there was no case to answer.[2] The prosecution now appeals that decision, contending that her Honour erred in law in acquitting the respondent.
[2] ts 54-56 (17/10/2022).
For the following reasons, I have determined that the learned Magistrate erred in law in finding that the respondent did not have a case to answer and therefore, leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed.

Magistrates Court proceedings

The prosecution charged two co-accused, namely Ms Lindrea and Mr Casey, with the same offence. Both co-accused pleaded guilty prior to the commencement of the respondent's trial.[3] The learned Magistrate imposed fines on the two co-offenders in the amount of $3000 and $2200 respectively.[4]
[3] ts 2-3 (17/10/2022).
[4] ts 16-17 (17/10/2022).
At the trial the prosecution was represented by counsel and the respondent was self-represented. Her Honour diligently explained, at the commencement of the trial, the manner in which the trial would be conducted.[5]
[5] ts 17-23 (17/10/2022).
The prosecutor outlined the alleged offending during his opening address.[6] The allegation concerned the tethering of a dog, named Oreo, by a chain that became entangled. The consequence was that…

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 Green v Randell

Details

AGLC: Green v Randell [2023] WASC 239
Case: [2023] WASC 239
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kylie Rae Green appeals against her acquittal by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia on a charge of animal cruelty. The respondent, Elana Rae Randell, had been charged with cruelty to an animal, namely a dog, by confining it in a manner that caused it unnecessary harm. The charge was brought under section 19(1), s 19(3)(b)(ii) and s 19(3)(d) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA). At the end of the prosecution case, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent finding there was no case to answer. The prosecution appeals that decision contending that the learned Magistrate erred in law in acquitting the respondent. The appeal was allowed and the verdict of acquittal is quashed and a retrial ordered. The learned Magistrate erred in finding that there was no case to answer because the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence that proved knowledge. The learned Magistrate should have considered whether the evidence, if accepted and drawing all inferences adverse to the respondent, was capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The prosecution was not required to establish that the respondent knew the circumstances in which the animal was being kept, as there is no element of knowledge in respect to an offence contrary to s 19(1) and s 19(3) of the Animal Welfare Act.

Orders