KRYSIAK -v- McDONAGH [2013] WASCA 100

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASCA 100
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:172/2012	Heard:	19 MARCH 2013
Coram:	McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA	Delivered:	16/04/13
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applications for leave to appeal dismissed Appeals dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TADEUSZ-EDMUND KRYSIAK PAUL THOMAS McDONAGH EMMA KATE BARNES
Catchwords:	Criminal law Application for leave to appeal against conviction Driving without authority Alleged constitutional issues Bias Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Commonwealth Constitution, ch III, s 92, s 115 Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 18, pt 2 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55 Currency Act 1965 (Cth) Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA), s 11, s 14, s 16, s 21 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), pt IVA, s 49 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)
Case References:	Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84 Amaca Pty Ltd (Formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) v Hannell [No 2] [2011] WASCA 232 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488 Krysiak v McDonagh [2012] WASC 270 O'Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96 Re Skyrings Application (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 561 Shaw v McGinty [2006] WASCA 231

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : KRYSIAK -v- McDONAGH [2013] WASCA 100 CORAM : McLURE P

BUSS JA

MAZZA JA

HEARD : 19 MARCH 2013 DELIVERED : 16 APRIL 2013 FILE NO/S : CACR 172 of 2012 BETWEEN : TADEUSZ-EDMUND KRYSIAK

Appellant

AND

PAUL THOMAS McDONAGH

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CACR 173 of 2012 BETWEEN : TADEUSZ-EDMUND KRYSIAK

Appellant

AND

EMMA KATE BARNES

Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : EM HEENAN J

Citation : KRYSIAK -v- McDONAGH [2012] WASC 270

File No : SJA 1083 of 2011, SJA 1085 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal against conviction - Driving without authority - Alleged constitutional issues - Bias - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Commonwealth Constitution, ch III, s 92, s 115

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 18, pt 2
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55
Currency Act 1965 (Cth)
Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994 (WA), s 11, s 14, s 16, s 21
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), pt IVA, s 49
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)

Result:

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed

Appeals dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CACR 172 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

(Page 3)

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

CACR 173 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

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

Allbeury…

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 Krysiak v McDonagh

Details

AGLC: KRYSIAK -v- McDONAGH [2013] WASCA 100
Case: [2013] WASCA 100
Decision Date: 16 APRIL 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Krysiak v McDonagh, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for driving without authority, challenging the constitutionality of the relevant legislation. The applicant argued that the legislation was discriminatory and denied him natural justice, as well as alleging bias on the part of the trial judge. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether there were grounds to grant leave to appeal and whether the appeal itself had any merit.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal had to consider included whether there were jurisdictional errors or constitutional issues in the applicant's conviction. This involved examining the constitutional validity of the driving without authority legislation, and whether the trial judge's alleged bias or procedural errors warranted an appeal. The Court had to balance the applicant's right to a fair trial with the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the Court found no merit in the applicant's claims of bias or procedural unfairness. The Court held that the trial judge's conduct did not amount to bias and that the applicant's constitutional arguments did not succeed. The Court also determined that there were no jurisdictional errors or constitutional flaws in the conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed

Appeals 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.