MAY -v- THOMAS [2014] WASCA 176
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 176 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:78/2012 | 11 FEBRUARY 2014 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ BUSS JA CHANEY J | 19/09/14 | |
| 46 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Decision of primary judge set aside Matter remitted for rehearing to District Court differently constituted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARK CHRISTOPHER MAY ANTHONY TREVOR THOMAS |
Catchwords: | Torts Trespass to the person Assault Applicability of common law and Criminal Code (WA) defences Torts Trespass to the person Assault Selfdefence and defence of others Necessity of findings as to nature of threat and response Necessity of findings as to defender's state of mind Appeal Error of law Deficiencies in reasons of trial judge Failure to make findings of fact as to elements of defences Appeal General principles Interference with judge's findings of fact Whether finding reasonably open on evidence |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 222, s 244, s 248, s 250, s 254 Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA), s 5 |
Case References: | Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Gibbs v Willis [2013] ACTSC 26 Hooper v The Queen [2003] WASCA 179 Leason v Attorney-General [2013] NZCA 509; [2014] 2 NZLR 224 May v Thomas [No 2] [2012] WADC 96 Meeks v Kirkham [2000] WASCA 94 Powell v The Queen (Unreported, WACCA, Library No 4004, 2 December 1980) Quartermaine v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 22 R v Dietz [2009] QCA 392 R v Green [2013] QCA 24 R v Hung [2012] QCA 341; [2013] 2 Qd R 64 R v Portelli [2004] VSCA 178; (2004) 10 VR 259 R v Trieu [2008] QCA 028 Watkins v Victoria [2010] VSCA 138 West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Bridge (1979) 141 CLR 535 Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [1987] HCA 26; (1987) 162 CLR 645 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MAY -v- THOMAS [2014] WASCA 176 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- BUSS JA
CHANEY J
- Appellant
AND
ANTHONY TREVOR THOMAS
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : FENBURY DCJ
Citation : MAY -v- THOMAS [No 2] [2012] WADC 96
File No : CIV 2394 of 2004
Catchwords:
Torts - Trespass to the person - Assault - Applicability of common law and Criminal Code (WA) defences
Torts - Trespass to the person - Assault - Selfdefence and defence of others - Necessity of findings as to nature of threat and response - Necessity of findings as to defender's state of mind
Appeal - Error of law - Deficiencies in reasons of trial judge - Failure to make findings…
Continue reading May v Thomas
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- May v Thomas [2014] WASCA 176
- Case
- [2014] WASCA 176
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of May v Thomas, the appellant, May, was found liable for assault after an altercation with the respondent, Thomas, which took place in the early hours of the morning outside a hotel. May's appeal against the decision of the District Court was dismissed, and he sought further recourse in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The legal issues at the heart of the appeal centred on whether the trial judge erred in law by not making necessary findings of fact regarding the elements of self-defence and defence of others, which are crucial in the context of assault charges under both common law and the Criminal Code of Western Australia. The court had to determine if these omissions constituted an error of law and whether they warranted the setting aside of the original decision and the remitting of the matter for a re-hearing.
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge failed to make critical findings of fact concerning the nature of the threat and the response of the parties, as well as the state of mind of the defender. These omissions were significant because they prevented a proper assessment of the defences raised by May. The court found that for both self-defence and defence of others, it is necessary to establish the proportionality of the response to the perceived threat, as well as the state of mind of the defender at the time of the incident. Given that the trial judge did not make these findings, the court concluded that there was an error of law, which led to the setting aside of the original decision. The matter was remitted to the District Court for re-hearing, with the instruction that it be heard by a differently constituted bench.
In light of the findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the primary judge. The case was then remitted to the District Court for a re-hearing, ensuring that the new tribunal would be differently constituted. This decision underscores the importance of thorough fact-finding in cases involving defences to assault charges, particularly when those defences hinge on subjective assessments of threat and response.
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge failed to make critical findings of fact concerning the nature of the threat and the response of the parties, as well as the state of mind of the defender. These omissions were significant because they prevented a proper assessment of the defences raised by May. The court found that for both self-defence and defence of others, it is necessary to establish the proportionality of the response to the perceived threat, as well as the state of mind of the defender at the time of the incident. Given that the trial judge did not make these findings, the court concluded that there was an error of law, which led to the setting aside of the original decision. The matter was remitted to the District Court for re-hearing, with the instruction that it be heard by a differently constituted bench.
In light of the findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the primary judge. The case was then remitted to the District Court for a re-hearing, ensuring that the new tribunal would be differently constituted. This decision underscores the importance of thorough fact-finding in cases involving defences to assault charges, particularly when those defences hinge on subjective assessments of threat and response.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Decision of primary judge set aside
Matter remitted for rehearing to District Court differently constituted
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.