MOORES -v- RENTING [2007] WASC 256

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 256
Case No:	SJA:1067/2007	Heard:	17 OCTOBER 2007
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	31/10/07
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Order for retrial
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	JASON MOORES KEVIN ROBERT RENTING
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Evidence Identification Whether magistrate failed to adequately take into account problems in identification Good character Whether character should have been mentioned Courts and judges Duty to state principles Duty to take warnings into account
Legislation:	Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31
Case References:	Donaldson v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 216 Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250 Harrison (1987) 29 A Crim R 213 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : MOORES -v- RENTING [2007] WASC 256 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 17 OCTOBER 2007 DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1067 of 2007 BETWEEN : JASON MOORES

Appellant

AND

KEVIN ROBERT RENTING

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE J G MUSK

File No : FRE 2190 of 2007

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Identification - Whether magistrate failed to adequately take into account problems in identification - Good character - Whether character should have been mentioned - Courts and judges - Duty to state principles - Duty to take warnings into account

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31

Result:

Appeal allowed

Order for retrial

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R A Young

Respondent : Ms L Goodsell

Solicitors:

Appellant : Robert Young

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Donaldson v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 216
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250
Harrison (1987) 29 A Crim R 213
Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: The appellant was charged with one count of assault occasioning bodily harm arising out of an incident Friday evening, between 22/23 September 2006, at the Riverton Gardens Hotel. This was a night on which the Dockers played in their first final and the complainant attended to watch the game. During the course of the evening he was assaulted causing tenderness and slight bruising over the left cheek bone and tenderness over the bridge of the nose. In due course the appellant was charged with the offence and stood trial on 29 June 2007. In a video record of interview, and in his evidence to the magistrate, he denied the offence. The sole evidence linking him to the crime was the evidence of two witnesses who identified him as the assailant.

2 The magistrate convicted the appellant. From that conviction he appeals.

The evidence at trial

3 The complainant did not see who hit him.

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 Moores v Renting

Details

AGLC: Moores v Renting [2007] WASC 256
Case: [2007] WASC 256
Decision Date: 1 NOVEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moores v Renting involved the appellant, who was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault. The matter was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland, which was asked to consider whether the magistrate had failed to adequately consider the problems with the identification evidence presented in the trial. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the magistrate should have mentioned the appellant's good character and whether the magistrate was required to state the principles that the jury should follow when considering warnings about identification evidence.

The court found that the magistrate had not adequately considered the problems with the identification evidence. The court held that the magistrate's failure to adequately consider the issues with the identification evidence was a material error that called into question the safety of the conviction. The court also found that the magistrate should have mentioned the appellant's good character and that this omission was a material error. Finally, the court held that the magistrate was required to state the principles that the jury should follow when considering warnings about identification evidence, and the magistrate's failure to do so was a material error. These errors were not harmless and prejudicial and called into question the safety of the conviction.

As a result of the errors identified by the court, the appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. An order for a retrial was made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Order for retrial

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.