HAYNES -v- HUGHES [2001] WASCA 146
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 146 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1232/2000 | 3 APRIL 2001 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 9/05/01 | |
| 40 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ROGER HAYNES PETER LINDSAY FOSTER HUGHES |
Catchwords: | Appeal Justices Act 1902 (WA) Dismissal of charge Using computer service to obtain possession of objectionable material Evidence Whether Magistrate made error of fact or law Principles Criminal law Using computer service to obtain possession of objectionable material Meaning of "obtain possession" Meaning of requirement that prosecution prove computer service used to obtain possession Evidence Expert evidence Failure to give reasons for rejecting expert evidence Whether error of law Whether Magistrate rejected expert evidence |
Legislation: | Censorship Act 1996 (WA), s 101(1) Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199 |
Case References: | Apand Pty Ltd v Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 474 Atholwood v The Queen (2000) 110 A Crim R 417 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 Davis v The Queen (1990) 5 WAR 269 Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies [2000] 1 All ER 373 Moylan & Ors v Nutrasweet Co & Ors [2000] NSWCA 337 (unreported) BC 200007222, 24 November 2000 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306 Voulis v Kozary (1975) 50 ALJR 59 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395 Daniels v Burfield (1994) 125 ALR 33 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1992-93) 177 CLR 472 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
PETER LINDSAY FOSTER HUGHES
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal - Justices Act 1902 (WA) - Dismissal of charge - Using computer service to obtain possession of objectionable material - Evidence - Whether Magistrate made error of fact or law - Principles
Criminal law - Using computer service to obtain possession of objectionable material - Meaning of "obtain possession" - Meaning of requirement that prosecution prove computer service used to obtain possession
Evidence - Expert evidence - Failure to give reasons for rejecting expert evidence - Whether error of law - Whether Magistrate rejected expert evidence
Legislation:
Censorship Act 1996 (WA), s 101(1)
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms J C Pritchard
Respondent : Mr A O Karstaedt
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Crown Solicitor
Respondent : Max Crispe
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Apand Pty Ltd v Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 474
Atholwood v The Queen (2000) 110 A Crim R 417
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Davis v The Queen (1990) 5 WAR 269
Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies [2000] 1 All ER 373
Moylan & Ors v Nutrasweet Co & Ors [2000] NSWCA 337 (unreported)…
Continue reading Haynes v Hughes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Haynes v Hughes [2001] WASCA 146
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 146
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Haynes, was charged with using a computer service to obtain possession of objectionable material contrary to section 228D(1) of the Criminal Code (WA). The case was heard and dismissed by a Magistrate in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, with the decision subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appeal was brought under section 10 of the Justices Act 1902 (WA). The primary issue before the court was whether the Magistrate erred in fact or in law when dismissing the charge against Haynes. Specifically, the court had to determine the correct interpretation of the phrase "obtain possession" in the context of using a computer service to obtain objectionable material, and whether the prosecution adequately proved that Haynes used a computer service to obtain possession of the material. Additionally, the court examined whether the Magistrate made an error of law by rejecting expert evidence without providing reasons, and if such rejection constituted a significant error in the proceedings.
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and arguments presented, including expert evidence that was crucial to understanding the technical aspects of the case. The court noted that the term "obtain possession" in the statute was not defined and required an interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the words. The court concluded that the term encompassed not only the physical or manual taking of possession but also included the act of accessing and causing the objectionable material to be displayed or stored on a device under the control of the accused. The court found that the prosecution had met its burden of proving that Haynes used a computer service to obtain possession of objectionable material, as the evidence showed Haynes had knowingly accessed and caused the material to be stored on his device. Furthermore, the court held that the Magistrate's failure to provide reasons for rejecting the expert evidence did not amount to an error of law that would warrant a retrial. The Supreme Court found no basis for allowing the appeal and dismissed it.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Magistrate was upheld. The court's interpretation of "obtain possession" and its assessment of the evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge against Haynes. The Supreme Court did not find any significant error in the Magistrate's handling of the expert evidence, and therefore, the appeal was without merit.
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and arguments presented, including expert evidence that was crucial to understanding the technical aspects of the case. The court noted that the term "obtain possession" in the statute was not defined and required an interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the words. The court concluded that the term encompassed not only the physical or manual taking of possession but also included the act of accessing and causing the objectionable material to be displayed or stored on a device under the control of the accused. The court found that the prosecution had met its burden of proving that Haynes used a computer service to obtain possession of objectionable material, as the evidence showed Haynes had knowingly accessed and caused the material to be stored on his device. Furthermore, the court held that the Magistrate's failure to provide reasons for rejecting the expert evidence did not amount to an error of law that would warrant a retrial. The Supreme Court found no basis for allowing the appeal and dismissed it.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Magistrate was upheld. The court's interpretation of "obtain possession" and its assessment of the evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge against Haynes. The Supreme Court did not find any significant error in the Magistrate's handling of the expert evidence, and therefore, the appeal was without merit.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.