MORROW -v- UJC [2012] WASC 114

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 114
Case No:	SJA:1102/2011	Heard:	12 MARCH 2012
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	3/04/12
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Acquittal set aside Respondent found guilty and sentenced
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	KIRSTEN BROOKE MORROW UJC
Catchwords:	Criminal law Move-on order Whether order valid Whether an additional order can set a distance by reference to surrounding streets meaning of 'distance'
Legislation:	Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 3, s 27, s 153
Case References:	Spatolisano v Hyde [2009] ATCSC 161

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : MORROW -v- UJC [2012] WASC 114 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 12 MARCH 2012 DELIVERED : 3 APRIL 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1102 of 2011 BETWEEN : KIRSTEN BROOKE MORROW

Appellant

AND

UJC

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S R MALLEY

File No : PE 24742 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Move-on order - Whether order valid - Whether an additional order can set a distance by reference to surrounding streets - meaning of 'distance'

Legislation:

Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 3, s 27, s 153

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Acquittal set aside
Respondent found guilty and sentenced

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P D Lochore

Respondent : Mr S A Gabriel

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Respondent : Stephen Gabriel

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

Spatolisano v Hyde [2009] ATCSC 161

(Page 3)

HALL J

Introduction

1 On 23 August 2011 the respondent was acquitted of a charge of failing to comply with a move-on order contrary to s 153(1) of the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA). That acquittal followed a hearing over two days in the Magistrates Court. The basis for the acquittal was that the magistrate found that the move-on order was invalid.

2 The prosecution has appealed the order acquitting the respondent. There is one ground of appeal. It is that the magistrate erred in concluding that the move-on notice was invalid because that conclusion was based on a finding that an order by a police officer to go beyond an area bounded by certain streets was not an order within the terms of s 27(2)(a) of the Criminal Investigation Act.

3 On 22 December 2011 I granted leave to appeal on the ground contained in the appeal notice: s 9(1) Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).

Factual background

4 The facts were not in dispute.

5 At 12.15 am on 8 May 2011 two police officers were on a bike patrol in the vicinity of the Elephant and Wheelbarrow Bar in Northbridge. They observed a crowd controller from the bar requesting the respondent to get off a vehicle. The respondent was lying across the bonnet and front windscreen of a silver Audi sedan in front of the bar. He did not react…

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 Morrow v UJC

Details

AGLC: Morrow v UJC [2012] WASC 114
Case: [2012] WASC 114
Decision Date: 3 APRIL 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Morrow v UJC, the applicant challenged the validity of a move-on order imposed by the respondent. The applicant, Morrow, argued that the move-on order was invalid because it specified a distance by referencing surrounding streets, which Morrow contended was not a proper definition of 'distance' under the relevant legislation. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the move-on order was validly imposed under the relevant statute. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the order was correctly issued by referencing surrounding streets to define the distance, and whether this complied with the statutory requirements. The court also had to consider the meaning of 'distance' in the context of the legislation and whether it was permissible to reference surrounding streets in defining that distance.

The court found that the move-on order was invalid because the reference to surrounding streets did not provide a precise definition of 'distance' as required by the statute. The court held that the term 'distance' must be clearly and unambiguously defined, and referencing surrounding streets did not achieve this. As a result, the order was found to be invalid and Morrow's acquittal was set aside. The court found Morrow guilty and imposed a sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Acquittal set aside

Respondent found guilty and sentenced

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.