Kok Yong Tey v Martin Daniel Plotz Kok Yong Tey v Martin Daniel Plotz

[2012] HCASL 131

KOK YONG TEY

v

MARTIN DANIEL PLOTZ

KOK YONG TEY

v

MARTIN DANIEL PLOTZ

[2012] HCASL 131
P46/2011
P47/2011

1. The applicant was charged with refusing to supply her personal details to a police officer when requested to do so, contrary to s 16(6) of the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA). In a trial in the Magistrates Court at Perth, the prosecution alleged that on 11 June 2009 the respondent, a police officer, had asked the applicant her name but that the applicant had refused to supply it.

2. On 20 November 2009, Magistrate Lane found the applicant guilty of the offence charged and fined her $500.  The magistrate found that the applicant had attended a Department of Transport Licensing Centre ("the Licensing Centre") for the purpose of renewing her driver's licence.  The applicant had become loud and abusive when she was informed by staff that she could not renew her licence without the necessary identity documents.  Police were called to the scene and, after some minutes, the respondent asked the applicant for her name for the purpose of issuing her with a "move on" order.  The applicant refused to supply her name.

3. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Western Australia against her conviction and sentence.  At a directions hearing on 30 June 2010, Jenkins J made an interim order with the effect that the named respondent in the proceedings would be "Martin Daniel Plotz" rather than "WA Police".  Her Honour confirmed this provisional decision on 16 February 2011.

4. On 16 February 2011, Jenkins J also refused the applicant leave to appeal against her conviction and sentence.  Her Honour rejected each of the proposed grounds of appeal against conviction, which related to: the failure of the prosecution to prevent the routine destruction of closed circuit television footage of the public area inside the Licensing Centre; the alleged failure of the magistrate to consider whether the respondent had acted for an improper purpose or failed to take into account a relevant consideration; the alleged invalidity of the respondent's request for the applicant's name; and the alleged failure of the magistrate to consider whether the applicant had a reasonable excuse for refusing to supply her name.  Her Honour also held that there was no basis for concluding that a $500 fine was manifestly excessive or that a pre-sentence report and psychological report ordered by the magistrate had been unfair.

5. On 19 September 2011, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia refused the applicant leave to appeal against Jenkin J's provisional decision and her Honour's decisions concerning conviction and sentence.  Buss JA (with whom McLure P and Mazza J agreed) found that none of the proposed grounds of appeal relied upon by the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success.

6. The applicant brings two applications for special leave to appeal to this Court, one of which relates primarily to the Court of Appeal's decision regarding conviction (P46/2011) and the other of which relates primarily to its decision regarding sentence (P47/2011).  Both applications also assert error in connection with the provisional decision.  Each application raises grounds of appeal similar to those rejected by the courts below. 

7. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.  Accordingly, special leave is refused in each proceeding.

8. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application in proceeding P46 of 2011.  Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application in proceeding P47 of 2011.

W.M.C. Gummow
15 August 2012 S.M. Kiefel