Grewal v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2025] WASCA 26
•14 FEBRUARY 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: GREWAL -v- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [2025] WASCA 26
CORAM: BUSS P
MAZZA JA
MITCHELL JA
HEARD: 14 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED : 14 FEBRUARY 2025
PUBLISHED : 14 FEBRUARY 2025
FILE NO/S: CACR 37 of 2024
BETWEEN: BHUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Appellant
AND
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: LEMONIS J
Citation: GREWAL -v- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2024] WASC 92
File Number : SJA 1017 of 2023
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appellant convicted of offences committed against his wife and son in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia - Where primary judge dismissed appellant's appeal against his convictions to the General Division of the Supreme Court of Western Australia - Whether primary judge erred in dismissing the appeal to the General Division - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 301(1)(b), s 313(1)(a), s 444(1)(b)
Result:
Applications to adduce additional evidence dismissed
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | R P Arndt |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
(These reasons were delivered ex temporaneously and have been edited from the court's record of the decision.)
On 1 February 2023, the appellant was convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia of the following three offences, all allegedly committed on 29 August 2021:
1.wilful and unlawful damage of an Apple iPhone 8 being the property of Parveen Kaur Grewal (the appellant's wife); contrary to s 444(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (WA);
2.unlawfully assaulting Ms Grewal; contrary to s 313(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; and
3.unlawful wounding of Gurvir Singh (the appellant's son), contrary to s 301(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
It was a circumstance of aggravation of each offence that the appellant was in a family relationship with the victim. On 3 March 2023, the appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 8 months' imprisonment, suspended for 8 months, in respect of this offending.
The appellant appealed against his convictions to the General Division of this court on 17 grounds of appeal. On 27 March 2024, the primary judge (Lemonis J) published written reasons for refusing leave to appeal on all grounds of appeal to the General Division and dismissing the appeal to the General Division: Grewal v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2024] WASC 92. Those reasons contain a detailed account of the parties' cases and evidence led in the Magistrates Court. Having given detailed reasons why none of the grounds of appeal to the General Division were arguably established, his Honour dealt with and rejected various matters raised by the appellant's submissions which were not the subject of any ground of appeal in the General Division.
The appellant now appeals to this court against the dismissal of his appeal to the General Division on 22 grounds of appeal. Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal to this court concern misguided complaints as to the citation of various relevant authorities by the primary judge. Otherwise, the grounds of appeal to this court in substance reiterate various grounds of appeal and submissions made to the General Division, asserting errors or miscarriages of justice in the Magistrates Court, which were rejected by the primary judge.
Nothing raised in the appellant's grounds of appeal or submissions to this court provides any reason to doubt the correctness of the primary judge's reasons for refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal to the General Division. The primary judge was correct to conclude that none of the grounds of appeal to the General Division had any reasonable prospect of succeeding for the reasons which his Honour gave. While the primary judge was not required to deal with matters which were not the subject of a ground of appeal to the General Division, his Honour also was correct to reject the other matters raised by the appellant's submissions, again for the reasons which his Honour gave.
The appellant has filed two applications to adduce additional evidence in the appeal to this court, which have been referred to the hearing of the appeal.
By application in an appeal filed on 7 February 2025, the appellant seeks to adduce evidence of an exchange of text messages between the appellant and his daughter in January 2025. In those messages, the appellant asks his daughter to sign a statement which he has prepared, which is to the effect that the appellant has never abused his daughter. Despite messages pressuring his daughter to sign the statement, she declined to do so.
By application in an appeal filed on 10 February 2025, the appellant seeks to adduce evidence of programming orders made on 3 February 2025 by the Family Court of Western Australia in proceedings between the appellant and Ms Grewal.
These applications to adduce additional evidence do not relate to any of the grounds of appeal to this court, which do not contend that the absence of the proposed additional evidence at trial gave rise to any miscarriage of justice. Nor is there any apparent basis on which the absence of the proposed additional evidence at trial might give rise to a miscarriage of justice.
In the circumstances, the following orders should be made in the appeal:
1.The appellant's applications in an appeal filed on 7 February 2025 and 10 February 2025, seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the appeal, are dismissed.
2.Leave to appeal is refused on all grounds of appeal.
3.The appeal is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
LK
Associate to the Hon Justice Mitchell
14 FEBRUARY 2025
0
1
1