Practice and procedure - Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence - Whether reasonable prospect of succeeding - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2005 (WA), s 27

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 89(4)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed on ground 1 only

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr S B Watters
Respondent: No Appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant: Simon Watters
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620
Samuels v Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234

Case(s) also cited:

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
B v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599
Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
Holford v Melbourne Tramway & Omnibus Co Ltd [1909] VLR 497
King v The Queen [2001] WASCA 198
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Kotzmann v The Queen [1999] 2 VR 123
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Austin (2002) 132 A Crim R 537
R v Griffiths (1994) 76 A Crim R 164
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
R v Jones (1995) 78 A Crim R 504
R v Lippiatt, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980065; 17 February 1998
R v Matthews & Ford [1972] VR 3
R v Neville (2004) 145 A Crim R 108
R v Router (1977) 14 ALR 365
R v Zorad (1990) 47 A Crim R 211
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
Societe d'Avances Commerciales (Societe Anonyme Egyptienne) v Merchants' Marine Co (The Palitana) (1924) 20 LI L Rep 140
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306
Thompson v The Queen (1968) 117 CLR 313
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462

STEYTLER P: This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
On 26 May 2005 the applicant was convicted after a trial by a jury of one count of attempting to unlawfully kill a person, one count of unlawful assault causing bodily harm, one count of unlawful detention and one count of…

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 Morey v The State of Western Australia

Details

AGLC: Morey v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 8
Case: [2006] WASCA 8
Decision Date: 11 JANUARY 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morey v The State of Western Australia was a case before the High Court of Australia where the applicant, Morey, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The case arose from criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where Morey was convicted and sentenced for various criminal offences. The primary issue before the High Court was whether Morey had a reasonable prospect of succeeding on appeal based on the unique facts of his case.

The legal issue that the High Court needed to decide was whether Morey's application for leave to appeal presented a case of sufficient merit. This involved assessing whether there were grounds for appeal that were arguable and, if so, whether those grounds had a reasonable prospect of success. The court had to consider whether the appeal would lead to a different outcome in the case, focusing on whether the appeal was not merely a rehash of arguments already considered and rejected by lower courts.

The High Court found that Morey did not have a reasonable prospect of succeeding on appeal. The Court determined that the arguments presented by Morey did not present a novel or compelling case that departed significantly from previous legal precedents or the facts of the case. The Court held that the appeal was unlikely to result in a different outcome and, therefore, did not merit the grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, Morey's application was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were straightforward: the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no further appeal was permitted. This decision underscored the importance of demonstrating a significant departure from existing legal principles or a substantial new argument based on the unique facts of the case when seeking leave to appeal in the High Court.

Orders