MCDONALD -v- STEVENSON [2005] WASC 293
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASC 293 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1035/2005 | 16 DECEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 16/12/05 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction allowed No order as to appeal against sentence | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALAN WILLIAM MCDONALD MARK EDWARD STEVENSON |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Assault Self-defence Provision of aid by onlooker Degree of force issue Defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief Failure to address and resolve certain issues Appeal against conviction allowed |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA) s 24, s 248, s 249, s 250, s 313 |
Case References: | Davis v Egan, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960659; 15 November 1996 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Glennon v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 1 Harling v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437 Lomans v Morony [2000] WASCA 90 M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 R v Payne [1970] Qd R 260 Randle v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 26 Verhoeven v Ninyette (1998) 101 A Crim R 24 Whitehead v Procopis [2005] WASC 195 Betts v Hardcastle 120 A Crim R 463 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Griekspoor v Scott (2000) 23 WAR 530 Harper v Page [2004] WASCA 267 Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339 Lean v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 348 Milstead v Cream, unreported; SCt of WA; (Walsh J); Library No 8648; 19 December 1990 Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246 Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; (Parker J); Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- SJA 1056 of 2005
- Appellant
AND
MARK EDWARD STEVENSON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE T J MCINTYRE
File No : RO 4093 of 2004
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Assault - Self-defence - Provision of aid by onlooker - Degree of force issue - Defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief - Failure to address and resolve certain issues - Appeal against conviction allowed
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA) s 24, s 248, s 249, s 250, s 313
Result:
Appeal against conviction allowed
No order as to appeal against sentence
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr M J Bowden
Respondent : Mr T C Russell
Solicitors:
Appellant : Cannon Bowden & Co
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Davis v Egan, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960659; 15 November 1996
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR…
Continue reading McDonald v Stevenson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- McDonald v Stevenson [2005] WASC 293
- Case
- [2005] WASC 293
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of McDonald v Stevenson involves two appeals arising from a conviction in the Magistrates Court. The appellant, Alan William McDonald, was charged with unlawfully assaulting Dean Jade Cone. The appeals concern the conviction and the sentence. The first appeal focuses on the conviction, which the appellant contests on several grounds, including the Magistrate's failure to consider whether the appellant's actions were in aid of self-defense and whether the appellant honestly and reasonably believed his actions were necessary for self-defense. The legal issues center on the interpretation of self-defense provisions in the Criminal Code and the application of the defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief. The court found that the Magistrate erred by not properly determining whether the prosecution had negated the defence available to the appellant, and by not considering the defence of mistaken belief, which was open on the evidence. The appeal against conviction is allowed, and the conviction is quashed, with the matter to be reheard before a different Magistrate. The appeal against sentence is not addressed in detail in this summary, as the focus is on the conviction.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.