JAMES -v- SIEVWRIGHT [2003] WASCA 251

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 251
Case No:	SJA:1057/2003	Heard:	13 AUGUST 2003
Coram:	BARKER J	Delivered:	17/10/03
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	PAUL BRIAN JAMES JUDITH ANNE SIEVWRIGHT
Catchwords:	Appeal Justices Act 1902 (WA) Assault in home Biting portion of ear Home invasion defence Elements of defence Whether action made lawful by s 244 Criminal Code Whether appellant actually held belief that force used necessary Question of fact
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 244, s 246, s 248, s 317(1) Justices Act 1902 (WA)
Case References:	James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343 Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495 Marwey v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 630 Minniti v The Queen [2001] WASCA 148 The Queen v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15 The Queen v Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589 Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82 Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : JAMES -v- SIEVWRIGHT [2003] WASCA 251 CORAM : BARKER J HEARD : 13 AUGUST 2003 DELIVERED : 17 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1057 of 2003 BETWEEN : PAUL BRIAN JAMES

Appellant

AND

JUDITH ANNE SIEVWRIGHT

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Justices Act 1902 (WA) - Assault in home - Biting portion of ear - Home invasion defence - Elements of defence - Whether action made lawful by s 244 Criminal Code - Whether appellant actually held belief that force used necessary - Question of fact

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 244, s 246, s 248, s 317(1)

Justices Act 1902 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr J G Kitto

Respondent : Mr B E F Tooker

Solicitors:

Appellant : Kitto & Kitto

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343
Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495
Marwey v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 630
Minniti v The Queen [2001] WASCA 148
The Queen v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15
The Queen v Gray (1998) 98 A Crim R 589
Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657

Case(s) also cited:

Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234

(Page 3)

BARKER J

Introduction

1 This is an appeal by the appellant under the Justices Act 1902 (WA) against his conviction in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on 30 April 2003 for assault occasioning bodily harm contrary to s 317(1) of the Criminal Code.

2 The appellant was charged that on 22 December 2001 at Marangaroo he unlawfully assaulted Aaron Alexander Stuart Owens and thereby did him bodily harm contrary to s 317(1) of the Criminal Code.

3 The matter proceeded to hearing in the Court of Petty…

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 James v Sievwright

Details

AGLC: James v Sievwright [2003] WASCA 251
Case: [2003] WASCA 251
Decision Date: 17 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In James v Sievwright, the appellant, James, sought to appeal a conviction for assaulting the respondent, Sievwright, by biting a portion of his ear during an incident in Sievwright’s home. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was required to determine whether the appellant’s actions were justified under the home invasion defence and whether the appellant genuinely believed that the force used was necessary, as stipulated in section 244 of the Criminal Code.

The court was tasked with determining the elements of the home invasion defence, specifically whether the appellant had a genuine belief that the use of force was necessary to defend against Sievwright, and whether the actions of the appellant were lawful under section 244 of the Criminal Code. The court needed to assess whether the appellant genuinely believed that force was necessary and whether such a belief was reasonable under the circumstances.

The court examined the evidence presented and concluded that the appellant did not genuinely hold the belief that the force used was necessary to defend against Sievwright. The court found that the appellant's belief was not reasonable and did not align with the criteria for the home invasion defence as outlined in section 244 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The dismissal of the appeal meant that the conviction for assault stood, and no further legal recourse was available to the appellant in this instance.

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.