MAXWELL (also known as HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON) -v- BRUSE [2012] WASC 12

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 12
Case No:	SJA:1058/2011	Heard:	21 DECEMBER 2011
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	12/01/12
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TUMEKE ROBBIE MAXWELL (also known as HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON) MATTHEW DAVID BRUSE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Leave to appeal against conviction Stealing a motor vehicle contrary to s 371A of the Criminal Code (WA) Whether appellant had a legal claim of right over the vehicle Whether magistrate erred in summing up Ground has no prospect of succeeding
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9(1) Criminal Code (WA), s 371A, s 378
Case References:	Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : MAXWELL (also known as HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON) -v- BRUSE [2012] WASC 12 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 21 DECEMBER 2011 DELIVERED : 12 JANUARY 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1058 of 2011 BETWEEN : TUMEKE ROBBIE MAXWELL (also known as HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON)

Appellant

AND

MATTHEW DAVID BRUSE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE WILSON

File No : NO 1155 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Leave to appeal against conviction - Stealing a motor vehicle contrary to s 371A of the Criminal Code (WA) - Whether appellant had a legal claim of right over the vehicle - Whether magistrate erred in summing up - Ground has no prospect of succeeding

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9(1)

Criminal Code (WA), s 371A, s 378

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95

(Page 3)

HALL J

Introduction

1 The appellant was convicted on 7 June 2011 in the Northam Magistrates Court of stealing a motor vehicle contrary to s 371A and s 378 of the Criminal Code (WA). The conviction followed a trial on 13 April 2011. The appellant now seeks leave to appeal against that conviction.

2 The appeal notice contains one ground of appeal. It reads as follows:

[The] magistrate erred in his summing up and ignored evidence that was pertinent to my defence.

3 The ground as stated is inadequate in that it fails to identify any specific error on the part of the magistrate. Accordingly, I had the matter listed for a hearing in order to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted. The respondent was not required to appear. The appellant was given an opportunity to make submissions as to why leave should be granted.

4 On 16 December 2011, the appellant filed a document which bore the title 'Particulars of grounds for appeal'. This document sets out in 44…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maxwell (also known as Harley Robert Williamson) v Bruse and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] WASC 12
Decision Date: 12 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maxwell, also known as Harley Robert Williamson, applied for leave to appeal against his conviction for stealing a motor vehicle, contrary to section 371A of the Criminal Code (WA). The appeal was heard by the court. The primary issue the court had to address was whether the appellant had a legal claim of right over the vehicle at the time of the alleged theft, which would negate the mens rea for the offence. The appellant argued that he had an agreement with the owner of the vehicle that he would have the right to possess it, which was not honoured, and that this agreement constituted a legal claim of right.

The court considered the evidence presented, including the agreement between the appellant and the owner, and the circumstances surrounding the appellant's possession of the vehicle. The court found that the appellant's claim of right was not legally valid as it was not recognised by the law. The court held that the appellant had failed to establish that he had a legal claim of right over the vehicle at the time of the alleged theft, and therefore the mens rea for the offence was present. The court also considered whether the magistrate had erred in summing up, but found that there was no such error. The court concluded that the ground for the appeal had no prospect of succeeding.

Consequently, the court refused the appellant leave to appeal against his conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood. The orders made by the court were that leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.