Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: MAGISTRATE R JOHNSTON
File Number : AL 2051 of 2017
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Particulars and duplicity, general observations - Latent duplicity - Liquor Control Act 1988 (WA) - Failure to leave premises - Whether appellant was convicted of offence that was not the event particularised by the prosecution - Whether multiple events part of one offence
Miscarriage of justice - Whether procedural unfairness in the carriage of the investigation by arresting officer - Failure to take statements of particular persons - Whether departure from essential requirements of a fair trial - Whether the prosecution sought to change their case during the course of the trial - Whether, in all of the circumstances, there was a miscarriage of justice in that the appellant was the subject of an unfair trial
Bias - Appeal ground raises apprehended bias of primary judicial officer - Apprehended bias, general observations - Where arresting officer who is a witness appears before presiding judicial officer on previous occasions in professional capacity - Waiver - Whether appellant can appeal on grounds of bias after judicial officer brought apprehended bias to attention of parties but no application made
[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 Hunt v Russell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hunt v Russell [2019] WASC 284
Case
[2019] WASC 284
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Hunt v Russell, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction for an offence under the Liquor Control Act 1988 (WA) for failing to leave the premises. The appeal raised several significant legal issues, including whether the appellant was convicted of an offence that was not the event particularised by the prosecution, the potential for latent duplicity in the charge, and whether multiple events were part of one offence. Additionally, the appeal argued for a miscarriage of justice, claiming procedural unfairness in the investigation and trial process, including the failure to take statements of certain persons and a perceived departure from the essential requirements of a fair trial.
The court considered these issues in light of the evidence and submissions presented. It examined whether the appellant was indeed convicted of an offence that was not the event particularised by the prosecution, and if the charge contained latent duplicity. The court also evaluated whether the prosecution attempted to alter their case during the trial and if this constituted a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court analysed whether the trial was procedurally unfair due to the alleged procedural missteps and if these amounted to a departure from the essential requirements of a fair trial. The appeal also raised the issue of apprehended bias of the primary judicial officer, which was addressed by considering the judicial officer's prior professional interactions with the arresting officer who was also a witness.
The court concluded that the appellant's conviction should be upheld, finding no latent duplicity in the charge and no miscarriage of justice. The court found that the procedural issues raised did not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of a fair trial. Additionally, the court determined that there was no apprehended bias, as the judicial officer had brought the potential bias to the attention of the parties and no application was made. The appeal was therefore dismissed.