LANDERS -v- TEATHER [2004] WASCA 138

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 138
Case No:	SJA:1006/2004	Heard:	27 MAY 2004
Coram:	BARKER J	Delivered:	25/06/04
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DEREK CHRISTOPHER LANDERS GRAHAM BRIAN TEATHER
Catchwords:	Appeal against conviction Whether evidence supports conviction Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory No clear evidentiary basis for conviction Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 222, s 317A(c)
Case References:	Gatica-Evans v Wear [2004] WASCA 25 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454 Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : LANDERS -v- TEATHER [2004] WASCA 138 CORAM : BARKER J HEARD : 27 MAY 2004 DELIVERED : 25 JUNE 2004 FILE NO/S : SJA 1006 of 2004 BETWEEN : DEREK CHRISTOPHER LANDERS

Appellant

AND

GRAHAM BRIAN TEATHER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS

Coram : MS B LANE SM

File Number : PE 28509/03

Catchwords:

Appeal against conviction - Whether evidence supports conviction - Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory - No clear evidentiary basis for conviction - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s, 222, s 317A(c)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Mr S F Rafferty

Solicitors:

Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Gatica-Evans v Wear [2004] WASCA 25
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

BARKER J

Introduction

1 On 5 December 2003, in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth the appellant was convicted of one count of assault with intent to prevent arrest contrary to s 317A(c) of the Criminal Code (WA) and was sentenced to a term of 3 months immediate imprisonment. The appellant now appeals against his conviction.

2 At the trial before the learned Magistrate, evidence was led to show that the appellant had been arrested by the respondent police officer following a motor vehicle chase which had resulted in the appellant driving the motor vehicle of which he was in charge into the brick wall of a building adjacent to a road. The evidence showed that the respondent and another police officer who were in a police pursuit vehicle came to a stop nearby and adjacent to the appellant's motor vehicle. Evidence also showed that the respondent police officer, who was a passenger in the police pursuit vehicle, alighted from the police pursuit vehicle and took steps towards the appellant's motor vehicle and that the appellant then reversed his motor vehicle. A question at…

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 Landers v Teather

Details

AGLC: Landers v Teather [2004] WASCA 138
Case: [2004] WASCA 138
Decision Date: 25 JUNE 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Landers v Teather was brought by the defendant against his conviction for an offence under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (NSW). The case involved a dispute over whether the evidence presented in court was sufficient to support the conviction. The appeal was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal.

The central legal issue was whether the evidence provided was adequate to uphold the conviction. The court had to determine if the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether there was a clear evidentiary basis for the conviction. This required a detailed examination of the facts and the law applicable to the case. The court also needed to consider whether the case turned on its own unique facts.

In its decision, the court found that the evidence did not provide a clear basis for the conviction and that the verdict was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory. The reasoning given was that the evidence presented was not strong enough to support the conviction, and the case was determined based on its own specific circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was overturned.

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.