Horsman v McAdam - [2019] WASC 288

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   HORSMAN -v- MCADAM [2019] WASC 288
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
HEARD:   2 AUGUST 2019
DELIVERED          :   2 AUGUST 2019
PUBLISHED           :   13 AUGUST 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1042 of 2019
BETWEEN:   AARON JOHN HORSMAN
Appellant

AND

FRANK RICHARD MCADAM
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE G A BENN
File Number             :   GN 4243 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court - Competency of appeal - Definition of 'decision' - 'Dismissal of application to dismiss charge'

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr B Murray

Solicitors:

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

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

Dean v Legal Practice Board [2013] WASC 155
Sprylan v Wyborn [2019] WASC 227
Yates v Wilson (1989) 168 CLR 338

QUINLAN CJ:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on Friday 2 August 2019 and has been edited from the transcript.)

Aaron John Horsman has lodged an appeal notice seeking leave to appeal a decision of a magistrate. There is a preliminary issue as to whether the appeal is competent. The matter was listed before me today to address that issue.
I will identify the background briefly as follows.

Background

Mr Horsman is currently awaiting trial in the Magistrates Court, in Geraldton, in relation to a prosecution alleging that on 25 September 2018, he obstructed a public officer in the performance of the officer's functions. The prosecution has been allocated charge number GN 4243 of 2018.
Mr Horsman seeks to challenge the validity of the prosecution notice in GN 4243 of 2018 on the basis that it is 'unlawful'. The basis for that challenge would appear to be that Mr Horsman does not accept that the prosecution notice was properly signed in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) by the person issuing the prosecution notice (the respondent to this application).
Mr Horsman raised that issue before Magistrate Benn in the Magistrates Court on 21 February 2019 and sought to have the court dismiss the matter on 'procedural unlawfulness'.[1]
[1] Ts 2 (21 February 2019).
Magistrate Benn refused the application, saying:[2]
The charge has been properly laid. Whether or not it can be proved, of course, is another question entirely, and that’s the purpose of the trial, and I’m now going to set a trial date.
[2] Ts 3 (21 February 2019).
There followed an exchange between the learned Magistrate and Mr Horsman in relation to differences between the signed copy of the prosecution notice and the unsigned copies of the notice generated by the court's electronic document system. A number of issues in relation to the operation of the electronic document system were recently addressed by Jenkins J in Sprylan v Wyborn.[3] As set out below, it…

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 Horsman v McAdam

Details

AGLC: Horsman v McAdam [2019] WASC 288
Case: [2019] WASC 288
Decision Date: 13 AUGUST 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Horsman appealed against a decision of the Magistrates Court, which dismissed his application to dismiss a charge against him. The Magistrates Court found that the appeal was not competent as it was not an appealable decision. The legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of an application to dismiss a charge constituted a decision for the purposes of section 29 of the Magistrates Court Act 1989 (Vic). The court considered whether the dismissal of an application to dismiss a charge was a decision that had a final and operative effect on the applicant's rights or liabilities. The court found that the dismissal of an application to dismiss a charge did not constitute a decision for the purposes of section 29 of the Act. The dismissal of an application to dismiss a charge did not have a final and operative effect on the applicant's rights or liabilities, as the applicant could still be convicted of the charge if the application to dismiss the charge was unsuccessful. The appeal was dismissed as not competent. The court did not make any orders.

Orders