Major v Powell - [2020] WASC 57

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   MAJOR -v- POWELL [2020] WASC 57
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   18 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED          :   3 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1114 of 2019
BETWEEN:   MERILYN ALYX MAJOR
Appellant
AND
CAMPBELL TODD POWELL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE T R WATT
File Number            :   PE 29400 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against decision of magistrate - Appeal against acquittal - Whether no case to answer - Whether magistrate took prosecution evidence at its highest - Where magistrate engaged in weighing evidence - Error of law - Appeal allowed

Legislation:

Public Transport Authority Act 2003 (WA), s 65, s 69
Public Transport Authority Regulations 2003 (WA), reg 40, reg 41, reg 43

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Verdict of acquittal set aside

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms D Van Nellestijn
Respondent	:	In person

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia
Respondent	:	In person

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

Cook v Couacaud [2016] VSC 791; (2016) 263 A Crim R 527
Director of Public Prosecutions v Farmer [2010] VSC 343; (2010) 56 MVR 137
Halley v Kershaw [2013] VSC 439
Hurst v Ninyett (1992) 16 MVR 397
Labriola v Morgan [2017] WASC 256
Matich v Egan [2000] WASCA 368; (2000) 32 MVR 449
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
Police v Zare-Saisan [2011] SASC 46
Questions of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No 2 of 1993) (1993) 61 SASR 1
R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321
The State of Western Australia v Burke [2011] WASCA 190; (2011) 42 WAR 124
The State of Western Australia v Montani [2007] WASCA 259; (2007) 182 A Crim R 155

TOTTLE J:

Introduction

On 7 August 2019, following a trial in the Magistrates Court, the respondent was acquitted of one charge of obstructing a security officer in the course of her duties, contrary to reg 40 of the Public Transport Authority Regulations 2003 (WA) (the Regulations). The appellant seeks leave to appeal against the acquittal.
The Regulations are made under s 69 of the Public Transport Authority Act 2003 (WA) (the Act); the Act establishes the Public Transport Authority of Western Australia (the Authority).
The ground of appeal relied on by the appellant is that the magistrate erred in law in finding that the respondent had no case to answer in circumstances where the evidence, taken at its highest, was capable of establishing the offence charged. The appellant seeks an order that there be a new trial before a differently constituted court.

The prosecution case at trial

The facts alleged by the prosecution were as follows:[1]
(a)Shortly before 9.30 pm on 12 April 2019 the respondent was on a train that was going from Fremantle to Perth.
(b)The respondent had become a nuisance to a group of people, and as a result two transit officers, Officers Major and Cocks,…

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 Major v Powell

Details

AGLC: Major v Powell [2020] WASC 57
Case: [2020] WASC 57
Decision Date: 3 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the defendant, Major, who had been acquitted of an offence by a magistrate. The respondent, Powell, sought to appeal the decision of the magistrate, arguing that there was no case to answer and that the magistrate erred in law by engaging in weighing the evidence rather than taking the prosecution's case at its highest. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate erred in law by engaging in weighing the evidence and whether there was no case to answer. The respondent argued that the magistrate's engagement in weighing evidence amounted to an error of law, and that the magistrate did not take the prosecution's case at its highest. The court needed to determine whether the magistrate's actions constituted an error of law and whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction.

The court held that the magistrate did indeed err in law by engaging in weighing the evidence rather than taking the prosecution's case at its highest. The court found that the magistrate's actions amounted to an error of law, as the magistrate should have accepted the prosecution's case as true unless it was disproven. The court also found that there was no case to answer, as the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to support a conviction. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the acquittal, and remitted the matter to the magistrate for further consideration. The court emphasised the importance of magistrates taking the prosecution's case at its highest and avoiding any engagement in weighing evidence.

Orders