Haigh v Oliver - [2015] WASC 462

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: HAIGH -v- OLIVER [2015] WASC 462

CORAM: TOTTLE J

HEARD: 20 OCTOBER 2015

DELIVERED : 4 DECEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: SJA 1024 of 2015

BETWEEN: BRETT GREGORY HAIGH
Appellant
AND
LAURA MICHELLE OLIVER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE E DE VRIES
File No  :JO 7877 of 2014

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for leave to appeal - Whether grounds of appeal have reasonable prospect of success - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 30
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 61(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr N S Barron

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Elwin v Robinson [2014] WASCA 46
Ex parte Roddan (1995) 14 WAR 279
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193

TOTTLE J: The appellant applies for leave to appeal against his conviction in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia for breaching a violence restraining order contrary to s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) and against the sentence imposed on him in respect of that breach, namely a fine of $300.
The conviction followed a trial held before his Honour, Magistrate De Vries, on 17 February 2015, at which the appellant conducted his own defence. The magistrate gave ex tempore reasons for his decision to convict the appellant and a judgment of conviction was duly entered. The magistrate's reasons were transcribed and a transcript of those reasons was made available to me.

The facts

Unless otherwise indicated, the facts set out below were not in dispute.
On 13 October 2011 a violence restraining order was made against the appellant. Amongst other things, the violence restraining order restrained the appellant from approaching within 20 metres of Ms Daniela Antoinette Bunn. Ms Bunn was the appellant's former partner. Ms Bunn and the appellant have two daughters, the eldest of whom was 15 years old at the offence.
On 30 June 2014 the eldest daughter had a netball game at Joondalup. The game started at about 8.00 pm.
The appellant attended the venue and watched his daughter play netball from a distance.
At the end of the game the netball coach gave the daughter's team a post‑match talk, after which the players and parents dispersed.
As Ms Bunn and her daughter were leaving the courts Ms Bunn saw that the appellant had come on to the court and was following them.
Using her smartphone, Ms Bunn took some video footage of the appellant, (exhibit 5). The footage shows the appellant on the netball court holding a plastic bag. It also records Ms Bunn shouting the words, '20 metres Brett - 20 metres'.
It…

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 Haigh v Oliver

Details

AGLC: Haigh v Oliver [2015] WASC 462
Case: [2015] WASC 462
Decision Date: 4 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haigh v Oliver was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the applicant sought leave to appeal the decision of the lower court. The applicant, Haigh, sought to appeal the decision of the trial court that dismissed his claim for damages against the respondent, Oliver. The trial court held that Haigh failed to establish a valid claim for damages as there was no causal link between Oliver's actions and the harm suffered by Haigh. Haigh argued that the trial court erred in its application of the law and that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a causal link.
The court was required to determine whether the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The court considered whether there was an error in law that had a material impact on the outcome of the case. The court also considered whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a causal link between Oliver's actions and the harm suffered by Haigh. The court held that the grounds of appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success as the trial court's application of the law was correct and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a causal link.
The court held that the trial court's decision was based on a correct application of the law and that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a causal link between Oliver's actions and the harm suffered by Haigh. The court held that the applicant failed to establish that the trial court's decision was erroneous and that the grounds of appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. As a result, the decision of the trial court stands and Haigh's claim for damages against Oliver was dismissed.

Orders