Hodder v Neenan

Case [2019] WASC 311


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   HODDER -v- NEENAN [2019] WASC 311

CORAM:   HILL J

HEARD:   28 JUNE 2019

DELIVERED          :   28 AUGUST 2019

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1028 of 2019

BETWEEN:   JAMES LESLIE HODDER

Appellant

AND

ROBERT NEENAN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No:   SJA 1028 of 2019

Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram:   MAGISTRATE T WATT

File Number             :   PE 9219 of 2018; PE 9220 of 2018


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appeal against sentence - Whether adjournment should have been granted by magistrate - Whether decision unsafe and satisfactory - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9(1), s 9(2), s 10(3)
Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 172(2), s 313(1)(a)
Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 132
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 75(2), s 132, s 134

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person
Respondent : Ms M M Yeung

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Chew v The Queen (1991) 4 WAR 21

Donaldson v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 196; (2005) 31 WAR 122

Hanneybel v The Queen [2004] WASCA 54

Lewis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2008] WASCA 155; (2008) 37 WAR 483

Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559

Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; (2001) 206 CLR 650

The State of Western Australia v Olive [2011] WASCA 25

HILL J:

  1. On 7 February 2019, the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of unlawful assault in circumstances of aggravation and one count of obstructing a public officer in the performance of his functions in relation to incidents that occurred on 30 January and 20 February 2018 respectively.  The learned magistrate imposed on the appellant a global fine of $1,000 for both charges and ordered that he pay costs of $100.

  2. The appellant seeks leave to appeal against both convictions as well as the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate.

Notice of appeal and leave to appeal

  1. On 21 February 2019, the appellant filed his notice of appeal which was within time.[1]

    [1] Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 10(3).

  2. The notice of appeal sets out seven grounds of appeal, namely that:

    1.The learned magistrate refused to admit certain evidence from defence witnesses;

    2.The appellant was refused an adjournment to secure a lawyer;

    3.The two separate charges were heard jointly;

    4.The verdicts were 'unsafe and unsatisfactory';

    5.An amendment was made to one of the charges on the day of the hearing;

    6.Medical certificates show that the appellant was unfit to stand trial; and

    7.The appellant had obtained a restraining order against the victim.

  3. All seven grounds relate to the appellant's appeal against his conviction. The appellant did not address…

Continue reading Hodder v Neenan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hodder v Neenan [2019] WASC 311
Case
[2019] WASC 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hodder v Neenan, the appellant, Mr Hodder, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence imposed by a magistrate. The appellant was charged with various offences including assault occasioning bodily harm, common assault, and affray. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that the magistrate should have granted an adjournment and that the decision was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate should have granted an adjournment and if the decision was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant contended that there were exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment, specifically the unavailability of a key witness. The appellant further argued that the decision was unsafe and unsatisfactory because the magistrate did not adequately consider all relevant factors.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the request for an adjournment and the reasons provided by the magistrate for denying it. It was determined that the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would justify an adjournment. The court also scrutinised the decision-making process of the magistrate and found that the decision was based on a comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors, including the evidence presented and the principles of justice. Consequently, the court found that the decision was both safe and satisfactory, and the appeal was dismissed. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

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.