HODDER -v- BALL [2013] WASCA 65

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASCA 65
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:206/2012	Heard:	24 JANUARY 2013
Coram:	McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA	Delivered:	7/03/13
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMES LESLIE HODDER ALAN EDWARD BALL
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Single judge dismissed appellant's appeal against his conviction in the Magistrates Court Breach of violence restraining order Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 16, s 18 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 144(4)
Case References:	Hodder v Ball [2012] WASC 350 Jones v The Queen [1997] HCA 12; (1997) 191 CLR 439 Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 55 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 R v Nguyen [2010] HCA 38; (2010) 242 CLR 491 SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400 Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 224 CLR 300

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HODDER -v- BALL [2013] WASCA 65 CORAM : McLURE P

BUSS JA

MAZZA JA

HEARD : 24 JANUARY 2013 DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2013 FILE NO/S : CACR 206 of 2012 BETWEEN : JAMES LESLIE HODDER

Appellant

AND

ALAN EDWARD BALL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HALL J

Citation : HODDER -v- BALL [2012] WASC 350

File No : SJA 1057 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Single judge dismissed appellant's appeal against his conviction in the Magistrates Court - Breach of violence restraining order - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 16, s 18

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 144(4)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Hodder v Ball [2012] WASC 350
Jones v The Queen [1997] HCA 12; (1997) 191 CLR 439
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 55
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Nguyen [2010] HCA 38; (2010) 242 CLR 491
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 224 CLR 300

(Page 3)

1 McLURE P: I agree with Buss JA.

2 BUSS JA: On 7 May 2012, the appellant was convicted, after a trial in the Magistrates Court before Magistrate Heaney on that day, on one charge in a prosecution notice. The charge alleged that on Sunday 18 September 2011, at Subiaco, the…

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 Hodder v Ball

Details

AGLC: HODDER -v- BALL [2013] WASCA 65
Case: [2013] WASCA 65
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hodder, appealed against his conviction in the Magistrates Court for breaching a violence restraining order. The matter was heard by a single judge in the Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted the evidence and applied the law in convicting the appellant of breaching the restraining order.

The court considered whether the trial judge's interpretation of the evidence was open to the appeal court to interfere with. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in finding that the evidence demonstrated a breach of the restraining order. The court found that the trial judge's interpretation of the evidence was not flawed and that the findings of fact were open to the trial judge based on the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge correctly applied the law to the facts as found, and there were no errors of law that warranted interference by the appeal court.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to a higher court was refused. The conviction of the appellant for breaching the violence restraining order stands as determined by the Magistrates Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.