MOMAND -v- MERTTENS [2015] WASC 150
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 150 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1091/2014 | 3 FEBRUARY 2015 | |
| Coram: | CORBOY J | 1/05/15 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal on two proposed grounds of appeal Appeal allowed Conviction set aside | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
JIM HARRY MERTTENS
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE M FLYNN
File No : AR 5702 of 2013
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Inconsistent verdicts - Unreasonable and unsatisfactory verdict - Adequacy of reasons - Accident
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14
Criminal Code (WA), s 445
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31
Result:
Leave to appeal on two proposed grounds of appeal
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr F Merenda
Respondent : Ms M Georgiou
Solicitors:
Appellant : Sklarz Lawyers
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASCA 131
Brown v Churchill [2006] WASCA 17; (2006) 31 WAR 246
Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165
McKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Momand v Merttens 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2015] WASC 150
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Momand v Merttens, the appellant sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for a criminal offence, on the grounds of inconsistent verdicts and the adequacy of reasons given by the trial judge. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of an offence based on a finding that the events leading to the death of a child were not accidental. The jury also found that the events were not due to a failure to exercise the necessary degree of care and attention.
The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for the verdict. The appellant argued that the jury's finding that the events were not accidental necessarily meant that they were due to a failure to exercise the necessary degree of care and attention, and that the trial judge had not properly considered the evidence of the witnesses. The respondent submitted that the verdicts were consistent and that the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for the verdict.
The court held that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the verdict. The court found that the jury's finding that the events were not accidental did not necessarily mean that they were due to a failure to exercise the necessary degree of care and attention, and that the trial judge had not properly considered the evidence of the witnesses. The court held that the verdicts were inconsistent because they could not all be true at the same time and that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the verdict because the reasons given were insufficient to demonstrate that the trial judge had considered all of the evidence and had properly applied the law.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The court held that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsatisfactory and that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the verdict. The court held that the verdicts were inconsistent because they could not all be true at the same time and that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the verdict because the reasons given were insufficient to demonstrate that the trial judge had considered all of the evidence and had properly applied the law. The court held that the conviction was therefore unreasonable and unsatisfactory and that it should be set aside.
The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for the verdict. The appellant argued that the jury's finding that the events were not accidental necessarily meant that they were due to a failure to exercise the necessary degree of care and attention, and that the trial judge had not properly considered the evidence of the witnesses. The respondent submitted that the verdicts were consistent and that the trial judge had provided adequate reasons for the verdict.
The court held that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the verdict. The court found that the jury's finding that the events were not accidental did not necessarily mean that they were due to a failure to exercise the necessary degree of care and attention, and that the trial judge had not properly considered the evidence of the witnesses. The court held that the verdicts were inconsistent because they could not all be true at the same time and that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the verdict because the reasons given were insufficient to demonstrate that the trial judge had considered all of the evidence and had properly applied the law.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The court held that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsatisfactory and that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the verdict. The court held that the verdicts were inconsistent because they could not all be true at the same time and that the trial judge had not provided adequate reasons for the verdict because the reasons given were insufficient to demonstrate that the trial judge had considered all of the evidence and had properly applied the law. The court held that the conviction was therefore unreasonable and unsatisfactory and that it should be set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal on two proposed grounds of appeal
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
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.