King v Lankford - [2000] WASCA 214

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: KING -v- LANKFORD [2000] WASCA 214

CORAM: WHEELER J

HEARD: 21 JUNE 2000

DELIVERED : 18 AUGUST 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1165 of 1999

BETWEEN: PAUL ANTHONY KING
Applicant
AND
TROY LANKFORD
Respondent

FILE NO/S :SJA 1095 of 2000

BETWEEN :PAUL ANTHONY KING
Applicant
AND
LISA BARGAIN
Respondent

FILE NO/S :SJA 1001 of 1999

BETWEEN :PAUL ANTHONY KING
Appellant
AND
FELICITY JEAN CRAWFORD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Justices - Appeal - Complaints of resisting and hindering arrest and assault - Refusal to adjourn - Dietrich principle - Conduct of Magistrate - Apprehension of bias

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal for extension of time to appeal dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

SJA 1165 of 1999

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr P D Quinlan

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

SJA 1095 of 2000

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr P D Quinlan

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

SJA 1001 of 1999

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr P D Quinlan

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292
Hunt v Towie, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallwork J); Library No 940283; 8 June 1994
Weinel v Fedcheshen (1995) 65 SASR 156

Case(s) also cited:

Cumby v Rhodes, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 5367; 29 May 1984
Geraldton Fisherman's Co-operative Ltd v Munro [1963] WAR 129
Kazinski v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8286
Letts v King (1988) WAR 76
Matich v Godfrey, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 920026; 13 February 1992
Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19
NSW v Canellis [1984] 181 CLR 309
Romito v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920649; 4 December 1992
Williams v R (1986) 66 ALR 385

WHEELER J: I have before me an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal. The appellant was convicted after trial in the Court of Petty Sessions at Rockingham on 11 December 1998 in respect of three complaints, one, that he resisted Constable Lankford, a member of the Western Australian Police Force acting in the execution of his duty, one of hindering Constable Lankford, and one in respect of assaulting Felicity Crawford. The events out of which the complaints arose, all took place on 15 October 1998.

Application to vacate hearing of appeal

On 4 October 1999, the applicant obtained both an extension of time and leave to appeal from the decision of the Magistrate in respect of the complaints of resisting and hindering. Since that time, the appellant has on a number of occasions sought to have argument in respect of the appeal adjourned and before me on 21 June, he sought to vacate the hearing of the appeal, which had been listed. I did not do so, for reasons which I then gave. Broadly, I took the view that there was insufficient evidence before me to suggest…

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 King v Lankford

Details

AGLC: King v Lankford [2000] WASCA 214
Case: [2000] WASCA 214
Decision Date: 18 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, King, was convicted in the Local Court of resisting and hindering arrest and assault. King appealed to the District Court, which dismissed his appeal. The basis of the appeal was that the Magistrate who presided over the trial in the Local Court should have recused himself due to an apprehension of bias. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the decision to be reported as King v Lankford.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Magistrate should have recused himself due to an apprehension of bias and whether the refusal to adjourn the appeal proceedings constituted a breach of the Dietrich principle. The appeal hinged on the conduct of the Magistrate during the trial and the refusal to adjourn the appeal proceedings. The court needed to determine if the Magistrate's conduct gave rise to a real danger that he was biased against the appellant, and if the refusal to adjourn the appeal proceedings was unjust.

The court held that the Magistrate's conduct did not give rise to a real danger that he was biased against the appellant. The court noted that the Magistrate's comments during the trial were not such that a reasonably informed observer, having full knowledge of the relevant facts, would conclude that there was an apprehension of bias. The court also found that the refusal to adjourn the appeal proceedings did not breach the Dietrich principle. The court held that the refusal to adjourn was not unjust, as the appellant had not provided any evidence to support his claim of bias and the appeal was not likely to succeed. The court dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders