Legal Research
Cases
MJ v Sanders

MJ v Sanders

Case [2020] WASC 150 11 May 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   MJ -v- SANDERS [2020] WASC 150
CORAM:   ARCHER J
HEARD:   23 APRIL 2020
DELIVERED          :   23 APRIL 2020
PUBLISHED           :   11 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1102 of 2019
BETWEEN:   MJ
Appellant
AND
MARC SANDERS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE S DE MAIO
File Number            :   KA 4446/2017 - KA 4453/2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Failure to prove scope of authorisation to use a restricted access computer system - Duplicity

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Extension of time within which to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Appellant re-sentenced

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	K E Heath
Respondent	:	B M Murray

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)
Respondent	:	Director Of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Barker v R [1983] HCA 18; (1983) 153 CLR 338
City of Swan v Bluebay Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 227
Director of Public Prosecutions v Murdoch [1993] 1 VR 406
Giles v Douglas [2011] WASC 14
Green v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 53; (2014) 240 A Crim R 73
Heesom v O'Keefe [2017] WASC 362
Inglis v Pinch [2016] WASC 30; (2016) 256 A Crim R 502
Michaels v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 174
Ninyette v Holmes [2015] WASC 287
Salter v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] NSWCA 190; (2011) 81 NSWLR
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
Vucemillo v Ambrose [2019] WASC 411
Wellington v Police [2009] SASC 294; (2009) 105 SASR 215
WS v Gardin [2015] WASC 97

ARCHER J:

Overview

The appellant was found guilty after trial of eight charges of unlawful use of a restricted‑access computer system, contrary to s 440A(3)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA). The charges alleged the unlawful use of two systems, the Integrated Courts Management System (ICMS) and a system used by the Department of Child Protection and Family Services[1] called ASSIST. The trial occurred over three days in 2018 before Magistrate De Maio. Her Honour delivered her decision on 21 June 2019, convicting the appellant of all charges.
[1] Now part of the Department of Communities.
The appellant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal, and leave to appeal, against several of the convictions. The applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal were ordered to be heard at the same time as the appeal.
The respondent conceded that the magistrate erred. Although I do not accept all of the respondent's concessions as originally framed, I am satisfied that her Honour erred.
At the conclusion of the oral hearing, I said I would allow the appeal and made the following orders:
1.The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is granted.
2.Leave to appeal is granted.
3.Appeal is allowed.
4.The convictions on charges KA…

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 MJ v Sanders

Details

AGLC: MJ v Sanders [2020] WASC 150
Case: [2020] WASC 150
Decision Date: 11 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MJ was charged with offences under the Crimes Act 1900, which included unauthorised access to a restricted access computer system. MJ appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove that the scope of his authorisation to access the computer system was limited. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the prosecution successfully established that MJ exceeded the scope of his authorisation when he accessed the restricted computer system. The court needed to determine if the evidence was sufficient to prove that MJ's actions were unauthorised beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed because it failed to clearly define the scope of MJ's authorisation to access the restricted computer system. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that MJ's actions were outside the bounds of his authorised access. The court emphasised that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused exceeded the scope of their authorisation. Given the lack of clarity in the evidence regarding the limits of MJ's authorisation, the court concluded that the prosecution had not met this burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

The court ordered that the conviction be quashed and that a new trial be held, ensuring that the prosecution provides clearer evidence regarding the scope of MJ's authorisation. This ruling highlights the importance of clearly defining authorisation limits in cases involving restricted access computer systems to ensure that convictions are based on solid and unequivocal evidence.

Orders