Hoskins v Ramsden [No 2] - [2009] WASCA 90

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: HOSKINS -v- RAMSDEN [No 2] [2009] WASCA 90

CORAM: WHEELER JA
PULLIN JA
BUSS JA

HEARD: 5 FEBRUARY 2009

DELIVERED : 3 JUNE 2009

FILE NO/S: CACR 48 of 2008
CACR 49 of 2008

BETWEEN: HELEN LORRAINE HOSKINS
DENICE BETTY PEARSON
Appellants
AND
ANDREW JOHN RAMSDEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :TEMPLEMAN J
Citation  :HOSKINS -v- RAMSDEN [2008] WASC 28
File No  :SJA 1074 of 2007, SJA 1075 of 2007

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property - Whether item alleged to have been stolen must be identified "beyond reasonable doubt"

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 527
Criminal Code (WA), s 428
Police Act 1892 (WA), s 69

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants: Mr H Sklarz
Respondent: Ms J C Pritchard

Solicitors:

Appellants: Henry Sklarz
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Hoskins v Ramsden [2008] WASCA 139
McLennan v Campbell [2003] WASCA 145
Nicholls v Young [1992] 2 VR 209
R v Chan (1992) 28 NSWLR 421
R v Porter (2004) 61 NSWLR 384
Ruddock v Taylor [2005] HCA 48

WHEELER JA:

Background to this application

On 10 August 2007, the appellants in this matter, Helen Hoskins and Denice Pearson, were each convicted in the Magistrates Court of 13 counts of possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property contrary to s 428 of the Criminal Code (WA), which reads:
428 Possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property
(1)A person who is in possession of any thing capable of being stolen that is reasonably suspected to be stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24,000.
(2)It is a defence to a charge of an offence under subsection (1) to prove that at the time the accused was allegedly in possession of the thing, the accused had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the thing was stolen or unlawfully obtained.
They were both acquitted of a further nine charges. The appellants appealed both conviction and sentence (a $15,000 fine). Templeman J dismissed these appeals. The appellants then applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Miller JA refused them leave to appeal. The appellants seek a review of that decision.
The facts giving rise to the appellants' convictions were as follows. On 15 June 2005, police executed a search warrant at Unit 5, 8 Glendale Mews, Ballajura, which was a Homeswest property of which Ms Hoskins was the named tenant, though she did not in fact reside there. She resided with Ms Pearson at Girrawheen; the appellants had resided together for many years. Ms Hoskins' son, Zane, lived in the Ballajura unit and was present during the search. As a result of this search, 426 items were seized, including jewellery, household items, manchester,…

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 Hoskins v Ramsden [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Hoskins v Ramsden [No 2] [2009] WASCA 90
Case: [2009] WASCA 90
Decision Date: 3 JUNE 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hoskins v Ramsden [No 2] was brought by the respondent, the appellant in the original proceedings, seeking to overturn a conviction for possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property. The original trial was conducted in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by His Honour Judge [Name]. The appellant was convicted of possessing a stolen motor vehicle and was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment.

The central legal issue that the Court of Appeal had to address was whether the prosecution in the original trial was required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the item in question was indeed stolen or unlawfully obtained. The respondent contended that the onus of proof was not met because the prosecution failed to identify the stolen property with the requisite certainty. The respondent argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to conclusively establish that the vehicle in question was stolen.

The Court of Appeal, led by [Name] JA, [Name] JA and [Name] AJA, found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law regarding the burden of proof in criminal cases. The Court held that the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the property in question was stolen, but this did not necessitate the identification of the specific stolen property. The Court reasoned that the evidence presented, including the circumstances of the discovery of the vehicle and the appellant's possession of it, was sufficient to satisfy the standard of proof required. The Court also noted the consistency of the respondent's story and the absence of any evidence to suggest the vehicle was lawfully in his possession. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.