LUND -v- DAVIES [2014] WASC 379

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 379
Case No:	SJA:1029/2014	Heard:	8 OCTOBER 2014
Coram:	CHANEY J	Delivered:	21/10/14
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal on all grounds refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ERIC LOUIS LUND MATTHEW JONATHAN DAVIES
Catchwords:	Criminal law Application for leave to appeal Whether second appeal available against decision of Magistrate
Legislation:	Constitution (Cth) Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) Criminal Code (WA) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Statutes Amendment (Appeals) Act 2013 (SA)
Case References:	JS v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 177 Lund v Davies [2013] WASC 52 Lund v Davies [2013] WASCA 268 Lund v Davies [2014] HCASL 102 Matta v The Queen (1995) 125 FLR 127 State of South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39; (2010) 242 CLR 1 Wainohu v New South Wales [2011] HCA 24; (2011) 243 CLR 181

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : LUND -v- DAVIES [2014] WASC 379 CORAM : CHANEY J HEARD : 8 OCTOBER 2014 DELIVERED : 21 OCTOBER 2014 FILE NO/S : SJA 1029 of 2014 BETWEEN : ERIC LOUIS LUND

Appellant

AND

MATTHEW JONATHAN DAVIES

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE K M BOOTHMAN

File No : PE 37706 of 2009, PE 37707 of 2009, PE 37708 of 2009, PE 37709 of 2009, PE 37710 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal - Whether second appeal available against decision of Magistrate

Legislation:

Constitution (Cth)

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
Statutes Amendment (Appeals) Act 2013 (SA)

Result:

Leave to appeal on all grounds refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms T McArthur

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Cases referred to in judgment:

JS v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 177
Lund v Davies [2013] WASC 52
Lund v Davies [2013] WASCA 268
Lund v Davies [2014] HCASL 102
Matta v The Queen (1995) 125 FLR 127
State of South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39; (2010) 242 CLR 1
Wainohu v New South Wales [2011] HCA 24; (2011) 243 CLR 181

1 CHANEY J: By a notice of the appeal filed on 16 April 2014, the appellant, Eric Louis Lund, applied for leave to appeal against a decision of a Magistrate at Perth made on 21 June 2012, when Mr Lund was convicted of five charges. The charges were as follows:

MATTER NO	OFFENCE	PENALTY
P37706/09	Burglary	$1500 Fine
P37707/09	Assault	$500 Fine
P37708/09	Assault public officer	$500 Fine
P37709/09	Failing to provide name and address to a police officer	$300 Fine
P37710/09	Obstructing public officer	$400 fine

2 The application identifies 11 grounds of appeal. Grounds 1 to 3 are said to relate to all five matters. Ground…

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 Lund v Davies

Details

AGLC: Lund v Davies [2014] WASC 379
Case: [2014] WASC 379
Decision Date: 21 OCTOBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Lund v Davies involved an appeal against a decision made by a Magistrate in a criminal case. The appellant, Mr. Lund, sought leave to appeal against the decision, arguing that the Magistrate had erred in the application of the law. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the appellant was entitled to a second appeal against the Magistrate's decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had a right to a second appeal against the Magistrate's decision. The court had to consider the principles of appeal in criminal matters and the availability of a second appeal. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the appeal was frivolous or vexatious, and whether it would serve the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the principles of appeal in criminal matters did not allow for a second appeal against the decision of a Magistrate. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any error of law by the Magistrate that warranted a second appeal. Furthermore, the court determined that the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious, but it did not serve the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, the court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal on all grounds. The court's decision was based on the established legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, and no further appeal was permitted against the Magistrate's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal on all grounds refused

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.