JOHNSON -v- STASKOS [2015] WASCA 32
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASCA 32 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:85/2014 | 5 SEPTEMBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA | 20/02/15 | |
| 38 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID COLIN JOHNSON DANIELL BROOK STASKOS |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure State appeal against decision of single judge to acquit respondent of serious assault of police officer Whether arrest lawful Whether respondent denied procedural fairness Common law requirement of notice of the reason for arrest Whether common law requirement abrogated by statute |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2 div 3, s 12 Criminal Code (WA), s 74A(2)(a), s 172(2), s 232, s 318(1)(d), s 318(4)(b) Criminal Code (Qld) s 255 Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 138 Criminal Investigation (Consequential Provisions) Act 2006 (WA) |
Case References: | Adams v Kennedy [2000] NSWCA 152; (2000) 49 NSWLR 78 Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573 Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39; (2004) 220 CLR 1 Cox v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 30; (2011) 205 A Crim R 503 Cumberbatch v The Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 3353 (Admin) Fox v Beringer [2011] WASC 38 Johnstone v New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 70; (2010) 202 A Crim R 422 McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [2013] WASCA 135 Nguyen v Elliott (Unreported, VSC, 6 February 1995) Nicholas v Parsonage [1987] Crim LR 474 Police v Dafov [2008] SASC 247; (2008) 102 SASR 8 R v O'Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397 Staskos v Johnson [2014] WASC 137 State of New South Wales v Delly [2007] NSWCA 303; (2007) 70 NSWLR 125 Wright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 199; (2010) 43 WAR 1 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : JOHNSON -v- STASKOS [2015] WASCA 32 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
DANIELL BROOK STASKOS
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : LE MIERE J
Citation : STASKOS -v- JOHNSON [2014] WASC 137
File No : SJA 1115 of 2013
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - State appeal against decision of single judge to acquit respondent of serious assault of police officer - Whether arrest lawful - Whether respondent denied procedural fairness - Common law requirement of notice of the reason for arrest - Whether common law requirement abrogated by statute
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2 div 3, s 12
Criminal Code (WA), s 74A(2)(a), s 172(2), s 232, s 318(1)(d), s 318(4)(b)
Criminal Code (Qld) s 255
Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 138
Criminal Investigation (Consequential Provisions) Act 2006 (WA)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Category: A
Continue reading Johnson v Staskos
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Johnson v Staskos [2015] WASCA 32
- Case
- [2015] WASCA 32
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Johnson v Staskos involved an appeal by the state against the acquittal of Staskos on charges of seriously assaulting a police officer. The dispute centred on the legality of Staskos' arrest and whether he was denied procedural fairness. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the court were whether the common law requirement that an arrestee be given notice of the reason for their arrest had been abrogated by statute, and if Staskos' rights were violated when he was not provided with such notice. The court also had to consider whether the lack of notice rendered the arrest unlawful and whether this impacted the fairness of the proceedings against Staskos.
The High Court determined that the common law requirement for notice of the reason for arrest had indeed been abrogated by statute. The court held that Staskos was not denied procedural fairness because the statutory provisions provided adequate safeguards. The court emphasised that the statutory framework sufficiently protected the rights of the accused and that the absence of notice did not render the arrest unlawful or unfair. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the acquittal of Staskos was set aside.
The legal issues before the court were whether the common law requirement that an arrestee be given notice of the reason for their arrest had been abrogated by statute, and if Staskos' rights were violated when he was not provided with such notice. The court also had to consider whether the lack of notice rendered the arrest unlawful and whether this impacted the fairness of the proceedings against Staskos.
The High Court determined that the common law requirement for notice of the reason for arrest had indeed been abrogated by statute. The court held that Staskos was not denied procedural fairness because the statutory provisions provided adequate safeguards. The court emphasised that the statutory framework sufficiently protected the rights of the accused and that the absence of notice did not render the arrest unlawful or unfair. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the acquittal of Staskos was set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.