HEDLEY -v- SPIVEY [2012] WASCA 116
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASCA 116 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:191/2011 | 1 MAY 2012 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA | 7/06/12 | |
| 8 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SCOTT McKENZIE HEDLEY JEREMY COLIN SPIVEY |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Application for leave to appeal against conviction Summary dismissal for abuse of process Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2, s 9, s 18 Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 32 |
Case References: | Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289 Glew v City of Greater Geraldton [2012] WASCA 94 Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87 Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 93 Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260 Glew v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCA Trans 520 Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14 Hedley v Spivey [2011] WASC 325 Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASCA 114 O'Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96 Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General [2006] WASCA 231 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HEDLEY -v- SPIVEY [2012] WASCA 116 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
JEREMY COLIN SPIVEY
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : McKECHNIE J
Citation : HEDLEY -v- SPIVEY [2011] WASC 325
File No : SJA 1043 of 2011
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal against conviction - Summary dismissal for abuse of process - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2, s 9, s 18
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 32
Result:
Application for leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289
Glew v City of Greater Geraldton [2012] WASCA 94
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 93
Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260
Glew v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCA Trans 520
Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14
Hedley v Spivey [2011] WASC 325
Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASCA 114
O'Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96
Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General [2006] WASCA 231
(Page 3)
1 McLURE P: On 1 May 2012…
Continue reading Hedley v Spivey
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hedley v Spivey [2012] WASCA 116
- Case
- [2012] WASCA 116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Hedley v Spivey was a case where the appellant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for an offence against the Crimes Act 1914. The respondent, Spivey, argued that the application should be summarily dismissed on the basis of an abuse of process. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contended that the magistrate had erred in law, while the respondent argued that the application was an abuse of process.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the application for leave to appeal should be summarily dismissed for being an abuse of process. The court needed to determine the appropriate circumstances under which an application for leave to appeal could be considered an abuse of process. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's case was exceptional and warranted the grant of leave to appeal.
The court held that the application for leave to appeal was an abuse of process, and therefore dismissed the application. The court found that the case turned on its own facts, and the appellant had not presented a compelling case for leave to appeal. The court noted that the appeal was being used as a device to reargue matters that had already been determined by the court of first instance. The court further held that the appellant's case did not meet the threshold for an exceptional case warranting leave to appeal. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The court did not grant leave to appeal and the appellant's conviction stood. The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the circumstances in which an application for leave to appeal may be considered an abuse of process.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the application for leave to appeal should be summarily dismissed for being an abuse of process. The court needed to determine the appropriate circumstances under which an application for leave to appeal could be considered an abuse of process. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's case was exceptional and warranted the grant of leave to appeal.
The court held that the application for leave to appeal was an abuse of process, and therefore dismissed the application. The court found that the case turned on its own facts, and the appellant had not presented a compelling case for leave to appeal. The court noted that the appeal was being used as a device to reargue matters that had already been determined by the court of first instance. The court further held that the appellant's case did not meet the threshold for an exceptional case warranting leave to appeal. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The court did not grant leave to appeal and the appellant's conviction stood. The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the circumstances in which an application for leave to appeal may be considered an abuse of process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal refused
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.