Laughton v Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia
[2022] WASC 457
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: LAUGHTON -v- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2022] WASC 457
CORAM: FORRESTER J
HEARD: 21 DECEMBER 2022
DELIVERED : 22 DECEMBER 2022
PUBLISHED : 22 DECEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S: SJA 1054 of 2022
BETWEEN: GRANT ERIC LAUGHTON
Appellant
AND
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: MAGISTRATE M MILLINGTON
File Number : MI 12855 of 2020; PE 15234 of 2021
Catchwords:
Criminal Law - Single judge appeal - Appeal against conviction - Whether the magistrate erred in failing to consider defence of accident - Whether verdict of guilty was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence - Criminal Code s 313(1)(a) and s 317(1)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused on both grounds
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | S B Watters |
| Respondent | : | R P Arndt |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | Legal Pathways |
| Respondent | : | The Director of Public Prosecutions for The State of Western Australia |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Gardner v Caporn [2005] WASCA 153
Rundle v Innerd [2015] WASC 340
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
WCW v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 232
Wells v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 27
FORRESTER J:
Introduction
On 22 March 2022, the appellant was convicted after trial of the offences of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and aggravated common assault. On 27 April 2022, he was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment in respect of the aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and 6 months' imprisonment cumulative for the aggravated common assault, making a total effective sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, commencing on 27 April 2022. He was made eligible for parole.
The appellant was also declared to be a Serial Family Violence Offender (the SFVO declaration).
The appeal
The appellant appeals his conviction in relation to each charge on the grounds that:
(1)The learned Magistrate erred when he failed to consider the defence of accident that was raised on the evidence at trial (MI 12855 of 2020).
(2)The verdict of guilty was unreasonable and/or unsupported by the evidence to the extent his Honour relied on the testimony of Mr Clint Green (PE 15234 of 2021).
The appellant also appeals against the making of the SFVO declaration. That appeal depends to a significant extent on the determination of the grounds of appeal.
The appeal was filed on 7 July 2022. As the last date for an appeal to be lodged was 25 May 2022, the appellant requires an extension of time.
The trial
The trial took place on 14 and 17 March 2022 in the Magistrates Court at Midland. The appellant was represented by counsel.
Prosecution case
Charge MI 12855/2020
As at 25 November 2020, the appellant and the complainant were in a family relationship. Between 2.00am and 2.30am, they were at the complainant's address, the appellant having been invited there to discuss the relationship. They started to argue, and the appellant grabbed the complainant's hair and dragged her from the outside patio into the house. Inside, he hit her head with a glass bottle, causing a significant lump and bruising above her right eye.
Charge PE 15234/2021
On 7 April 2021, at about 3.30pm, the appellant and the complainant were at the complainant's house. They had a heated argument, and the complainant ran to a nearby house for refuge. The appellant grabbed her and pulled her against the gate of the front yard.
Evidence
I will only summarise the evidence as far as is necessary for the purposes of the appeal.
Complainant
The complainant gave evidence that she and the appellant had been in a relationship for about 2 years, on and off. She said that one evening the year before, the appellant had hit her with a bottle. She said that she was not too sure what had happened before he hit her, saying:
I was asleep or in a cupboard when I woke up, and he had the thing with the bottle. That's all I really remember.[1]
[1] Transcript, WA Police v Grant Eric Laughton, Magistrates Court of Western Australia, 14 March 2022, 7 (Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022).
She said she was on the ground.
Afterwards, he dragged her to just outside the bedroom, and then the police came in. They took photos of the injury to her head.[2]
[2] Exhibit 1, A - D.
In cross-examination, the complainant said that she had picked the appellant up from prison and they had stopped at Dan Murphy's on the way home and picked up some beers. She had one or two beers. She denied taking any methylamphetamine.[3]
[3] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 17.
It was put to the complainant that she fell and hit her head on the floor and that was how she got the lump on her head. She disputed this and said that the appellant had a bottle in his hand and hit her in the head with the base of it. At that point, she was in a cupboard. After that, he dragged her to the front of the house and the police then arrived.[4]
[4] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 18.
In re-examination, the complainant said that her face swelled up and she had a black eye and that it was painful.[5]
[5] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 28.
Regarding the incident on 7 April 2021, the complainant said she and the appellant had a fight. She ran to a nearby house, chased by him. She tried to get behind the gate of a nearby house and he pushed through and slammed her to the ground and hit her head in the ground. He did not stop until the police arrived.[6]
[6] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 9 - 10.
In cross-examination, the complainant said that she had drunk alcohol prior to the incident. She was trying to make a phone call. It was put to her that the appellant had come in and taken her wine and drunk it. She could not remember that but said he often did that kind of thing. He was verbally carrying on. She packed some things and went to the local church. However, she forgot her phone, so went back to get it. The appellant was still 'hovering' and she ran from him to a nearby house. She denied that the dog at that house pushed her to the ground, but agreed that at one point when the appellant was assaulting her on the ground, the dog also grabbed her hair.[7]
Danielle Farthing
[7] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 20 - 27.
Ms Farthing gave evidence that at about 2.20am on 25 November 2020, she heard some 'screaming and shouting and clashing and banging and asking for help' coming from next door. The screaming was from a woman and she knew that the complainant lived there. She called 000 and the call was played.[8]
[8] Exhibit 2; Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 30 - 32.
In cross‑examination, she said she heard things being pushed over and things moving and crashing into the ground. She only heard the complainant's voice, which she recognised. The complainant was screaming for help. Ms Farthing got the impression the complainant was trying to close the door.[9]
Karen Irwin
[9] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 33 - 34.
Ms Irwin lived across the road and three or four houses down from the complainant. On 7 April 2021, she was in her kitchen when she heard a woman yelling and she thought she was in distress. She went to the flyscreen and could hear a person saying 'Go away. Leave me alone. Leave me alone.' Ms Irwin unlocked the flyscreen and went outside. She saw a man riding a bike in circles on the street. A woman was standing on Ms Irwin's side of the street telling him to go away. The man was stopping her from going anywhere. Ms Irwin knew the people to be the appellant and the complainant.[10]
[10] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 47 - 48.
Ms Irwin said that the complainant was able to run over the road, and through the gate of a nearby house, which she shut. The appellant was trying to push it open but the complainant was holding it closed. The appellant put his hands through the gate and was grabbing the complainant and pulling her towards the gate. The complainant managed to get away and then he opened the gate and went in. The complainant was screaming for help and for someone to call the police.[11]
[11] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 49 - 50.
Ms Irwin could not see all of what was happening, but could tell that the appellant was holding the complainant down on the ground. She said that the dog went over to them but the appellant told the dog to 'get out of it' and the dog went away. Ms Irwin rang the police and she called out to the complainant that she had done so. After this, the appellant grabbed his bike and left.[12]
[12] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 51 - 52.
In cross‑examination, Ms Irwin said that after the complainant pushed the gate shut, the appellant had his hands through the gate trying to grab hold of the complainant. He actually had hold of her and was trying to pull her through but she got away.[13]
Clint Green
[13] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 57.
On 7 April 2021, Mr Green was at a house which was three doors down from the complainant's house. He was out the back when he heard a scream over the sander he was using. He walked down the side and saw a man grab a woman through the gate of the property next door. It looked like he was slamming her against the gate. He went back to his sander but it sounded like the person was in serious trouble, so he called 000. He went back out the front and the male had the woman pinned down in the front yard.[14]
[14] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 61.
He clarified that the gate was between the two and it looked like she was trying to keep him out of the yard and he was grabbing her though the fence. The male was aggressive. The complainant was screaming and they were bloodcurdling screams. Mr Green called the police. When he heard the sirens coming, he went back out the front and the male was gone.[15]
[15] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 64.
In cross‑examination, he said that the complainant had her hands on the gate and the appellant had his hands through the gate on her. He had a hold of her. He did not see how they ended up on the ground with the appellant pinning the complainant down.[16]
Senior Constable Christopher Day
[16] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 66 - 67.
Senior Constable Day attended the complainant's house on 25 November 2020 at about 2.20am. The front door was open, and he heard a male and female yelling inside the house. He activated his body worn camera and ran up to the front door, where he saw the appellant standing over the complainant at the end of the hallway. The complainant was on the ground, cowering, upset and crying. He arrested the appellant. The appellant denied there was any assault.[17]
[17] Transcript, WA Police v Grant Eric Laughton, Magistrates Court of Western Australia, 17 March 2022, 2 ‑ 3 (Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022).
When Senior Constable Day went back to speak to the complainant, he saw she had a large bump on the right side of her head. His colleague took four photos of her injuries in his presence. The complainant told him that the appellant had hit her in the head twice with a glass bottle and had dragged her into the house by her hair.[18] This was recorded on body worn camera, which was tendered 'to bolster the prosecution case' as 'contemporaneous notes.'[19]
[18] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 4 - 5.
[19] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 7.
In cross‑examination, Senior Constable Day said he did not see any actual assault. He conducted a search of the house for any bottles with blood on them or that were broken, but did not find any. There were a number of glass bottles throughout the house.[20]
Grant Laughton (appellant)
[20] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 10 - 11.
The appellant gave evidence. He said they had been in a relationship for 2 years.
On 25 November 2020, he got out of prison and the complainant picked him up. They ended up at her place. On the way there, he bought some stubbies of beer. He drank quite a few beers, maybe 12 to 13. The complainant was drinking with him. He asked her if she had been cheating on him and she denied it. He asked her how she would love him if he went to someone else and she spat in his face and ran into the hallway.[21] He went to follow her and he heard her hit the ground with a thud. She was lifeless. He got hold of her and shook her. His eyes were open but not moving. She was breathing. He put her on her side and the police turned up while he was standing over her.[22]
[21] At transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 35 the transcript records the words 'smacked my face' but it is later made clear that the words were 'spat in my face' at Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 43.
[22] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 33 - 35.
The appellant said that he knew nothing about a bottle. He said that he was right handed, so he would not have hit her on the left side and at the time he did not see any bruise.[23]
[23] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 36 - 37.
In cross‑examination, the appellant said that the alcohol he drank affected him because of medication he was on. He thought the complainant had fallen over something, because the house was really cluttered. He was pursuing her because they had not finished their discussion. She fell over flat out and landed on her head. Her hands did not even go down. Her head bounced up and came down and she was lifeless.
The appellant agreed that the appellant fell face down; straight down. He said that the complainant was never in a cupboard in the bedroom and he never hit her with a bottle. He denied dragging her to where she was when police entered. [24]
[24] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 42 - 48.
In relation to the incident on 7 April 2021, he said he had a go at the complainant for cheating on him. She had a go at him. She was drinking, so he took it from her and finished it so she could not have it. She ran outside screaming and went to the house two doors down and he pursued her. The gate closed and he went to push on it. She tried to stop him but he used his force and got in. They were arguing and they both fell on the uneven ground. He fell over the top of her. He got up and dusted himself off and the dog grabbed her and slammed her into the ground. He pushed the dog away and told the complainant to get home, and he left.[25]
[25] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 37 - 38.
In cross-examination, the appellant admitted pursuing her from the house. He said he had had the bicycle for hours before this and he was not trying to stop her going home with the bike. He said that when he had the bike he was asking her where she had been for the last two days.[26]
[26] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 49 - 50.
The appellant said that the complainant ran to the house nearby and closed the gate on him. He was strong and used more force to get it open. When asked why he could not talk to her through the fence, he said:
…there was no danger involved. I just thought what, do you think you can keep me out.[27]
[27] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 50.
The appellant admitted that he pushed the complainant through the gate and that they had both fallen on the ground. Her screams were when the dog had grabbed her. He denied grabbing her through the gate and pulling her against it.[28]
Closing submissions
Prosecution
[28] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 50 - 51.
The prosecutor submitted that the complainant was a truthful and reliable, but reluctant witness. She submitted that both Ms Irwin and Mr Green gave evidence that the appellant pulled the complainant through the fence.
The prosecutor relied on the complainant's statements in the body worn camera footage in each case, effectively as prior consistent statements.
The appellant's evidence as to the November incident was criticised as being inconsistent as to the location where the complainant fell, as well as the fact that he claimed she was unconscious and that he did not want to be there after she came to, but when the police arrived he was still there, and the complainant was screaming.[29]
Defence
[29] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 59 - 63.
Defence counsel submitted that there was no independent evidence as to the events of 25 November 2020. He submitted that the appellant was standing up, but not over the complainant, when the police arrived. The police did not find any bottles close by. The complainant did not want to be at court, and was reluctant to admit that she sometimes used substances that affected her memory.
In relation to the April incident, defence counsel submitted that the complainant's evidence as to what she regarded as the assault was having her head slammed on the ground, but no one else saw that. He submitted that the two were in a relationship and it could be said that all the appellant wanted to do was speak to her and he was just holding her to get her attention.[30]
Reasons for decision
[30] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 63 - 66
On 22 March 2022, the magistrate delivered his reasons for decision. There is no suggestion that the magistrate did not appropriately direct himself as to the law as it applies to all criminal trials.
Charge MI 12855/2020
His Honour referred to the body worn camera footage, taken at the point of police entry, which shows the complainant on the ground, cowering, with the appellant over the top of her. She could be heard screaming and yelling for police before the police entered. This was contrary to the appellant's evidence.
The magistrate said:
I'm firstly, satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury depicted in exhibit 1 to the top of her head constitutes bodily harm, but the location of that lump…is not consistent with how Mr Laughton said she fell. If someone falls face first to the ground unaided by a stop by the hands or anything else you would expect injuries on her face, on her nose, something to her teeth and maybe her cheek bone and not for the injury that…[the complainant] received on the top of her head. For those combined reasons I reject his evidence in relation to that.[31]
[31] Transcript, WA Police v Grant Eric Laughton, Magistrates Court of Western Australia, 22 March 2022, 6 (Transcript of Proceedings, 22 March 2022).
His Honour then turned to the complainant's evidence. He noted she was reluctant, but still gave her evidence, and there was nothing which caused him to dismiss or reject it. She was unwavering in cross‑examination, and her injury was consistent with having been hit with a bottle.
The magistrate found that there was an argument which was sufficient for the neighbour to call the police. Whether the complainant was in a cupboard or not, he was satisfied that the appellant struck her with a bottle and then dragged her to the point she was when the police arrived. He also found that the injury constituted bodily harm, and that the complainant and the appellant were in a family relationship. In the absence of any defence being raised, he found the appellant guilty.[32]
Charge PE 15234/2021
[32] Transcript of Proceedings, 22 March 2022, 6 - 7.
His Honour summarised the evidence of the appellant and referred to the cross-examination, in which the appellant was asked why he needed to enter the front yard, and that the appellant thought it was funny. His Honour said he had issues with the appellant's evidence alone, such as why he would want to go into the yard if he did not want to hurt the complainant, and, if the appellant was concerned about the dog's behaviour, why he would leave the complainant alone with the dog. The magistrate noted the behaviour of the dog as shown in the body worn footage was not consistent with the behaviour alleged by the appellant, and it was staying away.
These issues, his Honour said, were compounded because there were independent witnesses whose evidence corroborated the complainant's evidence. His Honour summarised the evidence of each of the witnesses and found that they should be accepted.
The magistrate said that the evidence, then, was overwhelming as to this incident. He found that there was an argument and the appellant slapped the complainant's head against the wall. She left the house and the appellant followed her. The complainant ran into the neighbour's yard and closed the gate. The appellant grabbed her through the gate and slammed her into it. He then pushed his way into the yard, they fell to the ground and he slammed her head into the ground on at least two occasions. The elements of the offence having been proved, the appellant was convicted.[33]
Application for serial family violence offender declaration
[33] Transcript of Proceedings, 22 March 2022, 7 - 9.
On the making of the application for a declaration that the appellant was a serial family violence offender, the magistrate ordered a report from Community Corrections, to which he had regard before making the order on 27 April 2022.
Statutory framework
The application for leave to appeal is made under div 2 of pt 2 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) (CA Act). A decision to convict an accused after a trial is a decision which may be appealed.[34]
[34] CA Act s 6(c) and s 7(1).
Leave to appeal must not be granted on a ground of appeal unless the court is satisfied that the ground has a reasonable prospect of succeeding,[35] meaning that the ground is required to have a rational and logical prospect of succeeding.[36] Unless leave to appeal is granted on at least one ground, the appeal is taken to have been dismissed.[37]
[35] CA Act s 9(2).
[36] Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473 [56].
[37] CA Act s 9(3).
Application for extension of time
The appellant requires an extension of time to appeal, having filed his appeal more than 50 days out of time. In his affidavit sworn on 7 July 2022, the appellant claims that COVID-19 lockdowns and a delay on obtaining assistance and approval from Legal Aid WA caused the delay. It is convenient to deal with this application after consideration of the merits of the appeal.
Ground 1
This ground relates to the offence committed on 25 November 2020.
The appellant submitted that the effect of the totality of the appellant's evidence was that an evidential platform was established in relation to the defence of accident and that the magistrate erred in failing to find that accident had been disproved.
The foundation of the appellant's written submission was that the magistrate's rejection of the appellant's evidence relied upon his finding that the injury was not consistent with how the appellant said the complainant fell - an unbroken fall, face first. The appellant complained that this was not his evidence; his evidence was that the complainant fell and that she hit the ground with a thud and 'she landed on her head…her head sort of bounced up as well and came down.'[38] At no stage, he submitted, did he give evidence the complainant landed on her face.
[38] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 44.
However, the appellant said in cross-examination that when the complainant fell, she was 'head down' and he put her on her side. The magistrate asked him:
HIS HONOUR: Because she fell face down?
APPELLANT: Yes
HIS HONOUR: Straight down?
APPELLANT: Yes.[39]
[39] Transcript of Proceedings, 17 March 2022, 46 - 47.
Accordingly, the fundamental premise of the ground of appeal is flawed; the magistrate was entitled to rely on this evidence in finding that the appellant's evidence was that the complainant fell face down.
At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant's counsel submitted that this evidence was not fatal to the ground, because the appellant had not purported to give evidence as to how the injury occurred. However, he conceded that the magistrate was entitled to draw an inference as to that matter from the appellant's evidence.
At the hearing of the appeal, I was directed to a section of the reasons for decision of the magistrate, delivered after the magistrate had found that the appellant's evidence should be rejected, that the complainant's evidence should be accepted, and after he had made findings of fact. His Honour said:
I'm satisfied all elements are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On the evidence of Mr Laughton there was no defence raised and therefore no defence needs to be negated by the prosecution, and I will enter a judgment of conviction in relation to that.[40]
[40] Transcript of Proceedings, 22 March 2022, 7.
The appellant's counsel submitted that, in so stating, his Honour erred, because the appellant's evidence did raise a defence, that of accident.
Putting to one side whether that is in fact the case, the prosecution case was that the appellant assaulted the complainant by striking her with the bottle and thereby caused her bodily harm. If the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the magistrate was not then required to consider whether, on the appellant's version, an offence had been committed; the appellant was entitled to be acquitted.
In my view, his Honour was intending to do no more than express a finding that the appellant's evidence provided no evidentiary foundation for any defence in the circumstances of the case as found by his Honour, and thus no defence was required to be negated by the prosecution.
The appellant relied on WCW v The State of Western Australia[41] in arguing that the magistrate was obliged to find the defence disproved. However, WCW related to directions to be given to a jury, in circumstances where it was not known which facts the jury might ultimately accept or reject. In the instant case, his Honour was able to make factual findings before determining whether he needed to direct himself as to the operation of any available defence. Accordingly, WCW is not of assistance to the appellant.
[41] WCW v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 232 [13] - [14].
The appellant's counsel at one point sought to recast the ground as alleging an error on the part of the magistrate in rejecting the appellant's evidence, but when pressed, expressly declined to make an application to amend the ground or add a ground of appeal.
This ground is not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal is refused.
Ground 2
This ground asserted that the verdict was unreasonable and/or unsupported by the evidence to the extent his Honour relied on the testimony of Mr Clint Green.
The appellant clarified that by this ground the appellant contended that the verdict relied solely upon the evidence of Mr Green and that in those circumstances, the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence and there was therefore a miscarriage of justice.
The general principles governing an appeal on the ground of unreasonable verdict are well-established. The question for the appeal court is whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the magistrate to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty.[42]
[42] Wells v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 27 [13].
The particulars of the assault as alleged were that the appellant grabbed the victim through the gate and pulled her close into the gate.
Contrary to the appellant's assertion, Mr Green was not the only person who gave evidence supporting the prosecution case. Ms Irwin gave evidence as follows:
MS IRWIN:…she ran over (indistinct) and ran into the gate and quickly shut the gate and, by then, the gentleman got close behind her and, when she shut the gate, he was trying to push the gate open and she just kept forcing it and forcing it to - - so he couldn't open it, but that's when he put his hands through and (indistinct)…and in the end, she ripped herself away….he had his hands on her, trying to grab her and she managed to get herself away from the gate and the face and that's when he opened the gate and went in.
…
MS IRWIN:…She was trying to keep the gate shut but he had his hands through the gate, grabbing hold of her and she was obviously scared because he was pulling her towards the gate and (indistinct) done, so she just got so terrified, she just let go to move backwards and that's when he was able to get in.[43]
[43] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 50.
Further, in cross-examination, Ms Irwin said:
MS IRWIN:…he had his hands through the gate trying to - through the gate trying to grab hold of [the complainant] because she was holding it shut.
…
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Could you see whether he actually had hold of her or was he trying to - - ?
MS IRWIN:Yes, he did. He had hold of her and he was trying to pull her through, but then she ended up (indistinct) away.[44]
[44] Transcript of Proceedings, 14 March 2022, 57.
This evidence supported the prosecution case. As with Mr Green's evidence, Ms Irwin's evidence on this point was not challenged in cross‑examination.
The appellant's counsel conceded the existence of this evidence was fatal to ground 2.
This ground has no reasonable prospect of success. Leave to appeal is refused.
Serial Family Violence Offender Declaration
The appellant's appeal against this order was conditional on his appeal being upheld in relation to one or both of the grounds of appeal. As leave to appeal has been refused in relation to both grounds, leave to appeal against the making of the order must also be refused.
Orders
Application for extension of time refused.
Leave to appeal on ground 1 refused.
Leave to appeal on ground 2 refused.
The appeal is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
AT
Associate to the Honourable Justice Forrester
22 DECEMBER 2022
0
4
0