Maslin v Searle - [2010] WASC 146

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: MASLIN -v- SEARLE [2010] WASC 146

CORAM: SIMMONDS J

HEARD: 4 FEBRUARY 2010

DELIVERED : 18 JUNE 2010

FILE NO/S: SJA 1081 of 2009

BETWEEN: MATTHEW RONALD MASLIN
Appellant
AND
DEBBIANNE SEARLE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT JOONDALUP
Coram  :MAGISTRATE R K BLACK
File No  :JO 7842 of 2008, JO 7843 of 2008

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Charges of burglary and stealing - Unexplained possession of goods recently stolen - Inferences - Whether it was not reasonably open to magistrate to have found only rational or reasonable inference open to him was that the offender was guilty - Whether magistrate could not reasonably have concluded otherwise than that rational or reasonable inference was open that the appellant was guilty of receiving

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 378, s 401, s 414
Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 118
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), sch 1, cl 11

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms M M In De Braekt
Respondent: Ms J F Boots

Solicitors:

Appellant: Megan in de Braekt
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Bruce v The Queen [1987] HCA 40; (1987) 74 ALR 219
Carle v The Queen [2002] WASCA 71
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) [1984] HCA 7; (1984) 153 CLR 521
Gilson v The Queen [1991] HCA 24; (1991) 172 CLR 353
Laurens v Willers [2002] WASCA 183
R v Beljajev [1984] VR 657
R v Langmead (1864) Le & Ca 427; (1864) 9 Cox CC 464; (1864) 169 ER 1459
R v Wanganeen (1988) 50 SASR 433
Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573
Tasovac v Lawson [2009] WASC 394
Trainer v The King [1906] HCA 50; (1906) 4 CLR 126

SIMMONDS J:

Introduction

This is an appeal by leave against convictions on charges of burglary and stealing. The convictions followed a trial before a magistrate. The accused elected to adduce no evidence.
The appeal concerns the appropriate use of circumstantial evidence, principally the unexplained possession of recently stolen property.

Background

On 20 May 2008 Mr Adrej Mijatovic suffered a burglary and theft at his home in Balcatta. The appellant was charged with two offences in relation to those incidents.
One charge was that on that date without Mr Mijatovic's consent the appellant was in his dwelling and committed an offence there, namely, the stealing of property valued at $900, against Criminal Code (WA) (the Code) s 401(2)(b) (the burglary offence).
The other charge was that on that same date the appellant stole three gold chains, ten ear rings, one folding metal pocket knife and 6,150 lire cash to the value of $900 the property of Mr Mijatovic, against Code s 378 (the stealing offence).
It was common ground before me that the offence referred to in the charge for the burglary offence was the stealing offence. It was also common…

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 Maslin v Searle

Details

AGLC: Maslin v Searle [2010] WASC 146
Case: [2010] WASC 146
Decision Date: 18 JUNE 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Maslin v Searle, the appellant, Maslin, appealed against his conviction and sentence for burglary and stealing. The dispute involved whether the magistrate had reasonably come to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the crimes based on his unexplained possession of recently stolen goods. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issue before the court was whether it was reasonably open to the magistrate to have found that the only rational or reasonable inference open to him was that the appellant was guilty of the offences. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the magistrate could not reasonably have concluded otherwise than that the rational or reasonable inference was open that the appellant was guilty of receiving the stolen goods. The appellant argued that the magistrate's reasoning was flawed and that there were other rational inferences that could have been drawn from the evidence.

The High Court found that the magistrate had erred in his approach to the evidence and in drawing an inference of guilt from the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods. The court held that it was reasonably open to the magistrate to have concluded that there were other rational inferences that could be drawn from the evidence, and that the magistrate had failed to consider these other possibilities. The court further held that the magistrate's conclusion that the appellant was guilty was not reasonably open to him based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were quashed.

The High Court ordered that the appellant's conviction and sentence be quashed and that a new trial be held. The court emphasised the importance of the magistrate considering all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence before concluding that an accused person is guilty. The court also highlighted the need for careful consideration of the evidence and the application of the correct legal principles when drawing inferences in criminal cases.

Orders