LAURENS & ANOR -v- WILLERS [2002] WASCA 183
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 183 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1082/2000 | 24 MAY 2002 | |
| Coram: | EM HEENAN J | 28/06/02 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeals dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CHELSEA LEE LAURENS JOSHUA MOODIE GLEN RONALD WILLERS |
Catchwords: | Appeal pursuant to s 184 of Justices Act 1902 Criminal law Stealing Search without warrant of caravan park for stolen goods Significance of recent possession Rejection of submission of no case to answer Onus of proof Alternative conviction for receiving open Appeal against convictions for stealing after trial before Magistrate |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 378 Justices Act, s 184 |
Case References: | Allan v Liverpool Overseers (1874) LR QB 180 Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 Challenge Plastics Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (1993) 42 FCR 397 Dalton v McNaughton (1903) 29 VLR 144 Field v Sullivan [1923] VLR 70 GH Photography Pty Ltd v McGarrigle [1974] 2 NSWLR 635 Ghani v Jones [1970] 1 QB 693 Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 Halliday v Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1 King v The Queen [1969] 1 AC 304 Levine v O'Keefe [1930] VLR 70 (FCt) Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd [1998] WASCA 203; (1998) 103 A Crim R 312 National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 Prasad v The Queen (1994) 68 ALJR 194 R (Rottman) v Commissioner of Police [2002] 2 All ER 865 R v Bilick & Starke (1984) 36 SASR 321 R v Brings (1987) 24 A Crim R 98 R v Davidson (1991) 54 SASR 580 R v Schama & Abramovich (1914) 11 Cr App R 45 Smith v Overseers of St Michael's Cambridge (1860) 3 E & E 383 Trainer v The King (1906) 4 CLR 126 Tye v Commissioner of Police (1995) (Studdert J) SC NSW (BC 9505329) Williams v Douglas (1949) 78 CLR 521 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
and
Complaints No DO80 of 1999 and DO81 of 1999 in the Court of Petty Sessions at Geraldton between Glen Ronald Willers and Chelsea Lee Laurens and Joshua Moodie
- First Appellant
JOSHUA MOODIE
Second Appellant
AND
GLEN RONALD WILLERS
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal pursuant to s 184 of Justices Act 1902 - Criminal law - Stealing - Search without warrant of caravan park for stolen goods - Significance of recent
(Page 2)
possession - Rejection of submission of no case to answer - Onus of proof - Alternative conviction for receiving open - Appeal against convictions for stealing after trial before Magistrate
Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 378
Justices…
Continue reading Laurens v Willers
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Laurens v Willers [2002] WASCA 183
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 183
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, Willers, against convictions for stealing following a trial in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The appellant, Laurens, was found to have stolen a motorcycle and was also convicted of receiving stolen property. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction, specifically the question of whether the magistrate erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer. The respondent also contended that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the offence of receiving stolen property, challenging the onus of proof and the sufficiency of the evidence.
The court considered the nature and significance of the recent possession of stolen goods and whether it constituted sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court noted that the magistrate had properly considered the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the case. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the recent possession of stolen goods and, therefore, the conviction for stealing was properly upheld. The court also determined that the onus of proof was discharged by the prosecution, and the conviction for receiving stolen property was also correctly made. The court concluded that the magistrate's decision to reject the submission of no case to answer was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The court held that the respondent's submissions did not establish any error in the magistrate's decision. The court was satisfied that the evidence supported the convictions, and the appeal was dismissed. The final orders were that the appeals brought by the respondent against the convictions for stealing and receiving stolen property were dismissed. The convictions and sentences imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria were upheld.
The court considered the nature and significance of the recent possession of stolen goods and whether it constituted sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court noted that the magistrate had properly considered the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the case. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the recent possession of stolen goods and, therefore, the conviction for stealing was properly upheld. The court also determined that the onus of proof was discharged by the prosecution, and the conviction for receiving stolen property was also correctly made. The court concluded that the magistrate's decision to reject the submission of no case to answer was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The court held that the respondent's submissions did not establish any error in the magistrate's decision. The court was satisfied that the evidence supported the convictions, and the appeal was dismissed. The final orders were that the appeals brought by the respondent against the convictions for stealing and receiving stolen property were dismissed. The convictions and sentences imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.