Martin v Henderson - [2020] WASC 473

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   MARTIN -v- HENDERSON [2020] WASC 473
CORAM:   ALLANSON J
HEARD:   3 DECEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   24 DECEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1162 of 2019
BETWEEN:   ROBERT MARTIN
Appellant

AND

JACOB HENDERSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE L J ATKINS
File Number            :   RO 7345 of 2018, RO 7346 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Telecommunications offence - Where appellant convicted of sending messages that were menacing, harassing or offensive to son‑in‑law - Where appellant admitted to sending certain messages at trial - Where appellant now seeks to adduce fresh evidence that he could not have sent the messages - Whether evidence relevant or capable of affecting decision - Turns on own facts

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Where appellant alleges bias - Turns on own facts

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Whether appellant's legal representation at trial was inadequate - Whether miscarriage of justice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 5.6, s 474.17

Result:

Leave to appeal refused on each ground
Leave to adduce additional evidence refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	A Seen

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Jeffery v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 219
Smart v Power [2019] WASCA 106

ALLANSON J:

Title

On 1 August 2019, the appellant, Robert Martin, was convicted in the Magistrates Court on two charges that he used a carriage service in such a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances menacing, harassing or offensive. The charges were brought under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The offences were alleged to have occurred on 15 April 2016 and 17 April 2016.
On conviction, an order was made under s 20(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), requiring Mr Martin to be of good behaviour for 6 months, on a recognisance of $1,000.
On 18 December 2019, Mr Martin lodged an appeal notice, appealing against both conviction and sentence. The grounds of appeal, however, go only to the conviction.
Mr Martin was represented at trial but unrepresented on the appeal.

The trial

The prosecution case was that on 15 April 2016 and 17 April 2016, Mr Martin sent a series of text messages by telephone to his son‑in‑law, Mr Clinton. The charges did not specify from what telephone number the messages were sent.
The statement of material facts referred to text messages from two phone numbers. In opening, the prosecution stated that the messages which were the subject of the charges were from a particular number (ending in 311) and throughout the trial relied only on messages from that number.
Before evidence was called, counsel for Mr…

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 Martin v Henderson

Details

AGLC: Martin v Henderson [2020] WASC 473
Case: [2020] WASC 473
Decision Date: 24 DECEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Martin, was convicted in the County Court of Victoria for sending messages to his son-in-law that were menacing, harassing, or offensive. The matter was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, where Martin raised multiple grounds for challenging his conviction. Firstly, Martin sought to introduce fresh evidence that he could not have sent the messages, arguing that this evidence was both relevant and capable of affecting the decision. Secondly, Martin alleged that the trial judge exhibited bias during the proceedings. Finally, Martin contended that his legal representation at trial was inadequate, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The court carefully examined each ground of appeal, considering the relevance and potential impact of the fresh evidence on the conviction. The court found that the fresh evidence was not capable of affecting the decision, as it did not directly contradict the evidence already presented at trial. Regarding the alleged bias, the court found that the trial judge did not exhibit any bias during the proceedings. The court also rejected Martin's claim that his legal representation was inadequate, as the evidence showed that his legal team provided a competent defence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Martin's conviction was upheld.

Martin's appeal against his conviction was dismissed, and the original decision was affirmed. The court found that the fresh evidence presented was not relevant or capable of affecting the decision, and that the trial judge did not exhibit any bias. Additionally, the court held that Martin's legal representation was adequate, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred. As a result, Martin's conviction for sending menacing, harassing, or offensive messages to his son-in-law stands.

Orders