Hodder v Ball - [2012] WASC 350

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

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

CORAM: HALL J

HEARD: 11 SEPTEMBER 2012

DELIVERED : 11 SEPTEMBER 2012

PUBLISHED : 20 SEPTEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: SJA 1057 of 2012

BETWEEN: JAMES LESLIE HODDER
Appellant
AND
ALAN EDWARD BALL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P M HEANEY
File No  :PE 44954 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Breach of violence restraining order - Whether trial fair - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms D E Quinlan

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASC 5
Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487

HALL J:

Introduction

On 11 September 2012 I ordered that this appeal be dismissed. I gave brief reasons and stated that more detailed reasons would be published. These are those reasons.
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. On 7 May 2012 the appellant, Mr Hodder, was found guilty after a trial in the Magistrates Court of one count of breaching a violence restraining order contrary to s 61(1) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). He was fined $500.
Mr Hodder represented himself both in the Magistrates Court and on this appeal. Some allowance needs to be made for the way in which his grounds are framed. In essence, he alleges that the trial was unfair and that the magistrate did not give adequate reasons. At the hearing of this appeal he provided more detail of those claims. I will refer to that detail later in these reasons.

Background

Mr Hodder resides in a set of Homeswest flats in Subiaco. On the same floor of the flats an elderly lady, Maria Ruffell, also lives. There had been a dispute between them and Mrs Ruffell had obtained a violence restraining order.
Mr Hodder was served with the order on 4 August 2011 by a police officer who explained its terms. One of the terms was that Mr Hodder was not to go within 20 metres of Mrs Ruffell. He was also not to go within 20 metres of the external boundaries of her flat.
There are lifts at either end of the floor on which both Mr Hodder and Mrs Ruffell live. The effect of the order was to require Mr Hodder to use the lifts at his end and thereby avoid passing or being near to Mrs Ruffell's flat.
The prosecution case was that on 18 September 2011, whilst the violence restraining order was still operational, Mr Hodder breached the order by standing at Mrs Ruffell's door. The prosecution evidence in that regard was as follows.

Evidence in the Magistrates Court

Mrs Ruffell said that at approximately 10.20 am…

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 [2012] WASC 350
Case: [2012] WASC 350
Decision Date: 20 SEPTEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hodder v The Queen involved the appellant, Hodder, appealing against his conviction and sentence for breaching a violence restraining order. The dispute was heard in the High Court of Australia. Hodder was found guilty of breaching a violence restraining order by attending at the home of the respondent, Ball, and threatening her with violence. The appeal was primarily concerned with whether the trial was fair and whether the conviction should be upheld.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial was conducted in a manner that was fair and just. The appellant argued that there were procedural irregularities in the trial process that prejudiced his right to a fair trial. Specifically, the appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence that could have led to a different outcome. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge made errors in the admission and exclusion of certain evidence, which affected the fairness of the trial.

The court considered the arguments presented by the appellant and examined the trial record in detail. The High Court found that while there were some procedural irregularities, they did not amount to a denial of a fair trial. The court held that the trial judge had considered all relevant evidence and that the errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence did not prejudice the outcome of the trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. The High Court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that the fairness of a trial must be assessed in the context of the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders