Legal Research
Cases
Morgan v Cramer

Morgan v Cramer

Case [2019] WASC 68 7 March 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   MORGAN -v- CRAMER [2019] WASC 68
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   18 OCTOBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   7 MARCH 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1020 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CARMEL MORGAN
Appellant
AND
DAVID JAMES CRAMER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE A MAUGHAN
File Number             :   MI 5245/2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against acquittal - Being armed in circumstances likely to cause fear - Whether magistrate applied incorrect onus of proof - Whether the evidence could sustain a conviction - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2)
Criminal Code (WA), s 68

Result:

Leave to appeal on grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr L M Fox
Respondent	:	Mr R Williamson & Ms K Louden

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent	:	Ross Williamson

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

AK v The State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438
Ashcroft v R (1989) 38 A Crim R 327
Barritt v Baker [1948] VLR 491
Boxer v R (1995) 14 WAR 505
Dearnley v The King [1947] St R Qd 51
Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd [1990] HCA 5; (1990) 168 CLR 594
Dowling v Bowie [1952] HCA 63; (1952) 86 CLR 136
Molina v Zaknich [2001] WASCA 337; (2001) 24 WAR 562
Mulhall v Barker [2010] WASC 359
R v Bennett [2000] 2 Qd R 174
R v Burnett (1983) 19 Qld Lawyer Reps 23
R v Edwards [1975] QB 27
R v Hunt [1987] AC 352
The State of Western Australia v Burke [2011] WASCA 190
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 224 CLR 300
Wills v Williams [1971] WAR 29
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462
WS v Gardin [2015] WASC 97; (2015) 48 WAR 494

HALL J:

This is a prosecution appeal against an acquittal.
On 24 May 2016 the respondent, David Cramer, appeared in the Perth Magistrates Court on a charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon in circumstances that were likely to cause fear to any person, contrary to s 68(1) of the Criminal Code (WA). Mr Cramer entered a plea of not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial.
The trial took place over four days in late 2017. At the conclusion of the trial the magistrate reserved his decision. On 20 February 2018 the magistrate delivered his decision, in which he acquitted the respondent and provided written reasons. The prosecution seeks leave to appeal against that acquittal. The grounds allege that the magistrate made errors of law.
The respondent submits that the alleged errors were not made, but even if they were the appeal should be dismissed as the errors did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The respondent claims that, notwithstanding any errors, the evidence was insufficient to…

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 Morgan v Cramer

Details

AGLC: Morgan v Cramer [2019] WASC 68
Case: [2019] WASC 68
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Morgan v Cramer, the respondent, Cramer, appealed against his acquittal on a charge of being armed in circumstances likely to cause fear. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Cramer was originally tried in a lower court where he was acquitted by the magistrate. The appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was based on the argument that the magistrate had applied the incorrect onus of proof and that the evidence presented could have sustained a conviction for the charge.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate had erred in applying the onus of proof and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The court had to determine if the magistrate had correctly understood the legal principles governing the charge and whether the evidence provided was adequate for a conviction. The appellant argued that the magistrate had failed to properly apply the principles of criminal law, leading to an unjust acquittal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the trial judge's application of the relevant legal principles and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court found that the magistrate had indeed applied the onus of proof incorrectly, shifting the burden to the respondent rather than maintaining it on the prosecution. Additionally, the court concluded that the evidence, when viewed in the correct legal context, was sufficient to support a conviction. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the lower court for a retrial.

Orders