LONG -v- MAYGER [2003] WASCA 223
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 223 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1033/2003 | 8 AUGUST 2003 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH J | 22/09/03 | |
| 24 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JAMES HOWARD LONG WAYNE KEVIN MAYGER |
Catchwords: | Appeal Criminal law Conviction of unlawful wounding Complainant struck to head by glass bottle Whether finding that lacerations caused to right front of complainant's face caused by breaking bottle Whether caused by appellant or result of fall to glass on ground Whether finding open on evidence Whether other inferences reasonably open on evidence Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Medina v The Queen (1990) 3 WAR 21 Salmon v The Queen [2001] WASCA 237 Shepherd v The Queen (No 5) (1990) 170 CLR 573 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306 White v Goodger [2001] WASCA 259 Fox v Percy (2003) 77 ALJR 989 Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 Harvey v Matthews [1999] WASCA 58 Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17 Rasoolifard v Nichol [2001] WASCA 180 Scarce v Killalea [2003] WASCA 81 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : LONG -v- MAYGER [2003] WASCA 223 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 8 AUGUST 2003 DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1033 of 2003 BETWEEN : JAMES HOWARD LONG
- Appellant
AND
WAYNE KEVIN MAYGER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal - Criminal law - Conviction of unlawful wounding - Complainant struck to head by glass bottle - Whether finding that lacerations caused to right front of complainant's face caused by breaking bottle - Whether caused by appellant or result of fall to glass on ground - Whether finding open on evidence - Whether other inferences reasonably open on evidence - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R E Birmingham QC
Respondent : Mr B E F Tooker
Solicitors:
Appellant : Chris Baker & Associates
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Medina v The Queen (1990) 3 WAR 21
Salmon v The Queen [2001] WASCA 237
Shepherd v The Queen (No 5) (1990) 170 CLR 573
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306
White v Goodger [2001] WASCA 259
Case(s) also cited:
Continue reading Long v Mayger
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Long v Mayger [2003] WASCA 223
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 223
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Long v Mayger is a case where the appellant, Long, was convicted of unlawfully wounding a complainant. The incident involved the complainant being struck on the head by a glass bottle, resulting in lacerations to the right front of their face. The central dispute was whether these injuries were caused by the bottle being broken and striking the complainant or if they resulted from the complainant falling onto the broken glass on the ground. The appeal was heard by the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining the validity of the conviction based on the evidence presented.
The court had to decide whether the trial judge's finding that the lacerations were caused by the bottle being broken and striking the complainant was open to them on the evidence. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there were other inferences reasonably open on the evidence that could have led to a different conclusion. The primary focus was on the interpretation of the evidence and whether the trial judge's findings were supported by the facts presented.
The court of appeal found that the trial judge's finding was open to them on the evidence. They held that the trial judge was entitled to consider and weigh the evidence, and the finding of fact was not irrational or unreasonable. The court determined that other inferences reasonably open on the evidence did not undermine the trial judge's conclusion. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
The court's decision concluded that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that the conviction for unlawful wounding was valid. No further orders were made as the appeal was dismissed.
The court had to decide whether the trial judge's finding that the lacerations were caused by the bottle being broken and striking the complainant was open to them on the evidence. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there were other inferences reasonably open on the evidence that could have led to a different conclusion. The primary focus was on the interpretation of the evidence and whether the trial judge's findings were supported by the facts presented.
The court of appeal found that the trial judge's finding was open to them on the evidence. They held that the trial judge was entitled to consider and weigh the evidence, and the finding of fact was not irrational or unreasonable. The court determined that other inferences reasonably open on the evidence did not undermine the trial judge's conclusion. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
The court's decision concluded that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that the conviction for unlawful wounding was valid. No further orders were made as the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.